it 


= 
= 


aa 


te 


my 


sat 


PPS e 


ib 
abot 


+ 


nee 


E55 
et 


Siete 
uae 


tt 
ep ® eos | 
ped 
He iania ta 


“24 ) Oh Pegg 


rigesee 
gs" pak 
nie 
a TE ate 
rig of. Cote 
cube ates at 


THE HISTORY OF 
THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 


F, J. FOAKES-JACKSON 


By F, J. FOAKES-JACKSON 


Studies in the Life of the Early Church. 
The History of the Christian Church 

from the Earliest Times to A.D. 461. 
The Biblical History of the Hebrews 

to the Christian Era. 
A Brief Biblical History—Old Testament. 
A Brief Biblical History—New Testament. 


THE HISTORY 
OF THE 
CHRISTIAN CHURCH 


From the Earliest Times to A.D. 461 


BY 
F, J. FOAKES-JACKSON 


BELLOW OF JESUS COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE, AND HON. CANON OF 
PETERBOROUGH, BRIGG’S GRADUATE PROFESSOR OF CHRISTIAN 
INSTITUTIONS IN UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, 

NEW YORK 


NEW a YORK 


GEORGE H. DORAN COMPANY 


First Edition, March, 1892. 

Second Edition, February, 1898. 

Third Edition, October, 1902. 

Fourth Edition, December, 1905. 

Fifth Edition, Fuly, 1909. 

Sixth Edition, September, 19f4. 

Seventh Edition, New York, August, 1924. 
Eighth Edition, August, 1927. 


THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH 
oe Cc —— 
PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 


PREFACE 


I have been requested by J. Hall & Son, the English 
publishers, and George H. Doran Company of New York 
to issue a new edition of this work for America. That 
there should be a demand for this work on this side of the 
Atlantic is naturally gratifying to me. 

It has not been necessary to make many alterations in a 
work which has been subject to revision for more than 
thirty years. The few changes are in the form of addition 
to the notes of the earlier chapters. 

Ha eet 
Union Theolegical Seminary, 
New York. 


SYNOPSIS OF CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER I. 
THE PREPARATION OF THE WORLD FOR CHRISTIANITY. 


B.C. 535—63. 

The ruin of the ancient Judaean community resulted in a 
church-nation, a people reorganized on a purely religious basis, 
The Dispersion of Israel foreshadowed the Christian dispensation ; 
the synagogues prepared the way for the churches. Under 
Hellenic influence the Jews began to draw more closely to Western 
ideas, They endeavoured to shew that their Scriptures had in- 
spired the philosophers of Greece. The attempt of Antiochus 
Epiphanes to destroy their religion caused the Jews to revert to 
the Messianic hopes of the Prophets. This persecution introduced 
the idea of martyrdom: the sufferings of the martyrs increased 
the belief in a resurrection. Many fundamentally Christian ideas 
prevailed in the centuries immediately before Christ. The multi- 
plication of sects and parties—Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes, etc.— 
testifies to the vitality of Judaism during this period. Proselytism, 
a new feature in Judaism, was both active and successful; though 
the Gentiles, whilst acknowledging the high moral teaching of the 
Jews, could not overcome their repugnance to Jewish life. The 
success of Jewish principles and the failure of Jewish ordinances 
to attract the heathen world testified to the need of a religion like 
Christianity. Greece and Rome both contributed to prepare the way 
for the Gospel, the one by philosophy, the other by the establish- 
ment of law and order. pp. I—1I4. 


CHAPTER II. 
THE TIMES OF THE CHRIST. 
B.C. 66—A.D, 29. 


The rise of the family of Herod on the ruins of the Asmonean 
dynasty, the rebuilding of the Temple, and the tragedies in the 
household of Herod the Great, were accompanied by a great revival 
of Messianic hopes. At his death Herod’s dominions were par- 
titioned among his sons, Judaea falling to Archelaus, who in A.D. 6 
was deposed for misgovernment, and his territory incorporated 
into the Roman Empire and placed under a procurator. This 
caused the rebellion of Judas of Galilee and the rise of the Zelots, 
who refused to acknowledge any king but Jehovah. The hostility 
between Jew and Gentile had become more keen than ever when 
the Baptist delivered his message. Jesus Christ began His 
preaching in almost the same words as the Baptist, and His work 
was one of gradual self-revelation. He revealed the nature of 
His kingdom, then of His mission as the Christ, and lastly He 
declared His Divinity. pp- 15—28. 


eo 
vu 


Vili CONTENTS, 


: CHAPTER III. 
THE CHURCH OF THE APOSTLES, 
A.D. 29—96. 


The Church, according to the Acts of the Apostles, began in 
Jerusalem as a purely Jewish institution, first under St. Peter, 
afterwards under James the Lord’s brother. The Hellenistic Jews 
soon joined the infant Church, and developed a missionary spirit. 
The Gospel was preached throughout Syria, and the Gentiles 
began to seek admittance to the Church. The influence of the 
Church of Jerusalem seems to have waned somewhat after the 
persecution of Herod Agrippa I. Owing to the zeal of the 
Christians at Antioch, Barnabas and Paul were sent forth on their 
mission to Asia Minor. This is the real starting point of Gentile 
Christianity. St. Paul crossed into Europe, and the Acts of the 
Apostles ends with his arrival at Rome. By the close of the 
Apostolic age churches had been founded in most parts of the 
Empire, and legends assign to each of the Twelve Apostles spheres 
of work, some of which were in the remotest countries of the 


known world, pp. 29—42. 
CHAPTER IV. 
THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH AND THE ROMAN GOVERNMENT, : 
A.D. 14—156. 


The Roman State, though naturally tolerant of ideas, could 
not endure an unauthorised religious society like the Church. As 
belonging to an illegal sect the Christians were liable to constant 
attacks owing to popular frenzy, often stimulated by the Jews. 
The government for a variety of reasons made no determined 
effort to stamp out Christianity during the earlier ages of the 
Church. The different emperors varied in their attitude towards 
the Christians. Nero persecuted to avert suspicion from himself; — 
Domitian for domestic reasons. Trajan in his correspondence 
with Pliny regulated the procedure in regard to the Christians: 
Ignatius’ memorable journey from Antioch to martyrdom at Rome 
took place under Trajan. Under Hadrian the Apologists for 
Christianity began to make their appearance; and in the reign of 
Antoninus, Polycarp, the last hearer of an Apostle, suffered at 
Smyrna. | pp. 43—62. 


CHAPTER V. 
THE CONQUEST OF HEATHENISM BY CHRISTIANITY. 
A.D. 161—313. 


The virtues of Marcus Aurelius, his Stoicism and love of law, 
made him a persecutor; and he approved of the terrible martyr- 
doms of Lyons and Vienne. His profligate son Commodus left 
the Church in peace; but when order was restored after his death, 
Septimius Severus continued the persecution ofthe Church, During 


CONTENTS. ix 


the first half of the third century the Christians were left in com- 
parative peace, and even encouraged; but Decius in A.D. 250 made 
a resolute attempt to suppress the Church. This was renewed 
under Valerian; but his successor Gallienus made Christianity a 
religio licita, A long period of peace preceded the outbreak of 
the Diocletian persecution, which continued, at least locally, 
down to the victory of Constantine over Maxentius near Rome. 
The first act of the conqueror was to issue the famous edict of 
Milan, giving the Christians complete liberty of conscience. 

pp. 63—92. 

CHAPTER VI. 


THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS. 
A.D. 70—154. 


Theories resembling those of the old Tiibingen School, which 
assigned a very late date to most of the New Testament, have now 
been generally abandoned. The idea of a sharp division between 
Jewish and Gentile Christians has also ceased to be regarded as 
even plausible. The New Testament, as a whole, is looked upon 
as a product of the first century; and the Apostolic Fathers 
are a sort of inferior sequel to it. The Lfzstle of Barnabas 
imitates somewhat unsuccessfully the allegorical methods found in 
the Epistle to the Hebrews. Zhe Teaching of the Twelve Aposiles 
is a sort of Jewish Christian catechism, throwing much light on 
early church life. Clement is the author of a genuine Epistle 
from the Roman to the Corinthian church, and the same Father is 
credited with other writings. ‘The letters of Ignatius, written on 
his journey from Antioch to Rome, where he was to suffer, shew 
the intensity of the spirit of martyrdom, and the growth of 
episcopacy. A great controversy has raged about their genuine- 
ness. Papias of Hierapolis and Polycarp of Smyrna represent 
the churches of Asia. The latter, as the pupil of St. John and the 
teacher of St. Irenaeus, is the link which binds the Church of the 
first age to that of the close of the second century. pp. 93—121. 


CHAPTER VII. 
ORIGIN AND PRINCIPLES OF GNOSTICISM. 
A.D. 60—200. 


Gnosticism was the attempt to mingle the religions and ideas 
of the East with Christianity. Its great underlying principle was 
the view that all that is material is evil. We see traces of Gnos- 
ticism in the New Testament. In some cases the Gnostic sects set 
all ideas of Christian morality at defiance, The Ophites were the 
first Gnostics—the followers of Basilides, Valentinus and Marcion 
were representatives of different tendencies of current thought. The 
Judaizing sects of Gnostics and Marcion’s conflict with them are 
next dealt with, Gnosticism affected the Church by forcing its 


x CONTENTS, 


teachers to formulate their views and determine their canon of 
Scripture. Justin, Tertullian, Hippolytus and Clement of Alexandria 
all combated Gnosticism. The rise of the Manichaean heresy 
marked the close of the old Gnosticism and the beginning of a 
long conflict with the Catholic Church. pp. 122—152. 


CHAPTER VIII. 


CHRISTIAN THOUGHT IN THE SECOND AND THIRD 
CENTURIES. 


A.D. 100—300, 


In the early stages of religion God is thought of as personal, 
but as the ideas of the infinite and eternal gain ground He begins 
to be regarded as an abstraction. Then the notion of God being 
known by His Word or Wisdom developes. Jewish theology 
reached this point in Philo, and the Christians regarded the In- 
carnation as the supreme manifestation of the Word. From this 
starting point Christian Theology is traced through the Letter 
to Diognetus, Justin Martyr, Theophilus (the first to speak of a 
Trinity), Clement, and Origen. The opposite tendencies to those 
of the Church Fathers take different forms of Monarchianism, 
In the East, Sabellius and Paul of Samosata are typical Monar- 
chians. In the West, the chief Monarchians were the two Theodoti, 
Praxeas and Noetus; their opponents were Tertullian and Novatian. 
The doctrines of human nature, the Holy Spirit, Redemption, 
Millenarianism and the Resurrection are next dealt with ; but it is 
necessary to remember that the theology of this age was somewhat 
undeveloped and that it still awaited the time when it should be 
regularly formulated. pp. 153—179. 


CHAPTER IX, 
CHRISTIANITY AND OTHER RELIGIONS AND PHILOSOPHIES. 
A.D. I100—300. 


Christianity in many respects expressed the general tendencies 
of thought in the second and third centuries, There was a strong 
tendency towards Monotheism. This is seen in the worship of 
Serapis, and in the increasing attraction of Mithraism, the sacra- 
ments of which strangely resembled those of the Church. The 
Mysteries also expressed the desire of the age. Philosophy tended 
towards moral discipline ; between Stoicism and Christianity there 
were seeming affinities, though at bottom there was a real difference, 
Neo-Platonism arose, and though it seemed to have many ideas in 
common with Christianity, the philosophers of this school became 
the bitterest foes of the Church. Nevertheless Neo-Platonism 
influenced the development of Christian theology. The Apologists 
are next alluded to as presenting the Christian attitude towards 
zeathen thought. pp. 180—208, 

b2 


wae” Te! 


CONTENTS. xl 


CHAPTER X., 
THE ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH. 
| A.D. 29—313. 


The Church existed from the first, but its development was 
gradual. The earliest churches were small and widely scattered ; 
the dangers of persecution and heresy tended to unite and organize 
them. The first churches were, perhaps, modelled on the syna- 
gogues; soon however Christian peculiarities became manifest. 
But, from a survey of the subject in the New Testament, the 
Apostolic Churches of Jerusalem, Corinth, Philippi, Ephesus, 
and Rome seem to have had different forms of government. In 
St. Clement’s letter addressed to Corinth we notice a marked 
distinction between clergy and laity. In the days of Ignatius 
episcopacy existed at least in Asia; but by the close of the second 
century it was unquestionably universal. In the third century St. 
Cyprian formulated his views on the character of episcopacy. 
There were, however, attempts to restrain the growing power of 
the clerical order, and to these are due the rise of Montanism 
and Novatianism, as well as the dispute about Origen’s right to 
teach. The Sacraments are treated of, and brief accounts of 
she Eucharist in St. Paul, the Dzdache, Clement of Rome, Justin 
Martyr, Tertullian, and the Apostolic Constitutions, are given, 
Then follows a sketch of the social side of Christian life. 


pp. 209—242, 


CHAPTER XI. 
THE CHURCHES OF ROME, CARTHAGE, AND ALEXANDRIA. 


A.D. 54—313. 


The remarkable position of the Roman church is due 
partly to the importance of the city, but also to the Apostolic 
origin of the see and to the virtues of the early Roman 
church. St. Paul’s work in the church founded before his 
arrival at Rome, is described. Despite the silence of the 
New Testament, St. Peter’s sojourn at Rome is unquestionable. 
The first bishops of Rome are obscure, but we have a letter from 
Clement “fourth from the Apostles”, Christianity soon made 
its way into the imperial family, and some of Domitian’s relatives 
suffered for professing it. The letter of Ignatius to the Romans, 
and the visit of Polycarp to Rome during the Paschal controversy, 
attest the importance of the church. The story of Hippolytus 
and Callistus reveals to us the social condition of Christians at 
Rome. The Decian persecution shews the nobler side, several 
successive popes being martyrs. The last part of the third 
century, so far as the Roman church is concerned, is somewhat 
obscure, except for the action of Pope Dionysius, A.D, 259—269. 


Pett CONTENTS. 


‘The African Church had no apostolic founder and its origin is 
unknown ; but no church produced grander examples of Christian 
constancy. Tertullian, a type of the sternest form of African 
Christianity, joined the Montanists because he was dissatisfied 
with the lenity of the Catholic Church. Cyprian, who albeit a 
Catholic was an admirer of Tertullian, guided the church of 
Carthage through the perils of the Decian persecution and exalted 
the claims of episcopacy. He had a controversy with Pope 
Stephen on the question of rebaptism. . 

The Alexandrian church was the meeting place of the culture 
of the East and West, the home of Christian philosophy. Its 
early constitution of a bishop and twelve presbyters, who elected 
and consecrated their leader, is peculiar. Its chief centre of 
interest was the Catechetical School with its great teachers, 
Pantaenus, Clement, and Origen, The career of Origen, his 
youth, his teaching, his travels, his persecutions, and his critical 
labours, is traced. He was the founder of the School of Antioch, 
the rival of Alexandria. pp. 243—278. 


CHAPTER XII. 


CONSTANTINE IN THE WEST. THE EMPIRE AND THE 
CHURCH, 


A.D. 313—323. 


The victory of Constantine over Maxentius at the Milvian 
Bridge was regarded as a Christian triumph and connected with a 
Divine vision. It was followed by the edict of Milan. Constan- 
tine’s policy towards the Church was marked by caution. He 
introduced Christian ideas under the cover of much official 
paganism, and his words and actions were studiously ambiguous. 
His legislation, however, bears unmistakeable traces of Christian 
influence. His chief Christian adviser at this time was Hosius, 
bishop of Cordova in Spain. His first difficulty in connection 
with Christianity was the Donatist schism in Africa, arising out of 
the consecration of Caecilian as bishop of Carthage, by Felix, an 
alleged frvaditor in the Diocletian persecution. The case was 
tried at Rome and at Arles, and Caecilian’s consecration pro- 
nounced valid. But his opponents would not listen to reason, 
and under Donatus they formed a formidable schism. In 323 
Constantine overthrew his last rival Licinius and became master 
of the whole Empire. pp. 279—z296. 


CHAPTER XIII. 
ARIANISM AND THE COUNCIL OF NICAEA. 
A.D, 318—337. 


In the East a dispute between Alexander, bishop of Alex- 
andria and the priest Arius, led to serious consequences. Arius 


CONTENTS. Xill 


accused Alexander of Sabellianism, and propounded a theory that 
vhrist, though God, was not God in the same sense as God the 
Father. Arius appealed to his fellow students of the School of 
Lucian ; and finally Alexander excommunicated him. Constantine 
called the council of Nicaea to settle the question. Arius and his 
heresy were at once condemned; but the party of Eusebius, bishop 
of Caesarea, wanted a more indefinite creed than that proposed by 
Alexander and his friends. In the end the Alexandrians induced 
the Council to accept their creed. Athanasius, the deacon, 
became bishop of Alexandria in A.D. 328. The friends of Eusebius 
tried to discredit him, and managed to have him banished and 
Arius recalled. Arius however died on the day appointed for his 
restoration to the Church, At Rome, just after the council, 
Constantine had great trouble owing to dissensions in his own 
family, and his son Crispus was executed. To this period belongs 
the story of the Donation to pope Silvester, on which the papal 
claims to temporal dominion were based. After the visit to 
Rome, St. Helena, mother of Constantine, discovered the Holy 
Places at Jerusalem, Constantine was not baptized till just before 
his death in A.D. 337. PP. 297—327. 


CHAPTER XIV. 
THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY. 
A.D. 337—361. 


Constantius believed that he could unite the Church if the 
Creed of Nicaea and the homodousion formulary were set aside. 
This was at first the view of the so-called ‘ Conservatives’ headed 
by Eusebius of Caesarea. The Eusebians, led by Eusebius 
of Nicomedia, were resolved to introduce Arianism, whilst the 
‘Conservatives’ were at heart orthodox, but disliked Athanasius. 
So the two parties combined at Antioch to get rid of the 
homoouston and Athanasius. Julian, bishop of Rome, when 
appealed to, supported Athanasius, and so did the emperor 
Constans, brother to Constantius, Athanasius, who had returned 
on the death of Constantine, had been again banished from his see, 
but was restored by the Council of Sardica A.D. 343 and returned in 
A.D. 346. Then followed a period of tranquillity, during which 
the Arians gathered strength by attacking the allies of Athanasius. 
When Constantius, on the death of Magnentius, became master 
of the West he forced the bishops to renounce Athanasius and 
finally drove him from Alexandria in a.D. 356. The Arians then 
put forward a succession of creeds at Sirmium; and finally forced 
the Western bishops at Ariminum, and the Eastern at Seleucia, 
to subscribe to an Arian creed drawn up at Nicé in Thrace. The 
death of Constantius caused the controversy to cease for a time. 


pp: 328—350. 


XIV CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER XV. 
JULIAN AND THE PAGAN REACTION, 
A.D. 361—363. 


Julian and his elder brother Gallus were the sole survivors of 
the family of Constantine, whom the soldiers slew in A.D. 337; 
when Constantine II., Constans, and Constantius were made 
emperors. They were educated by Constantius and trained in 
the Christian discipline. Julian was even ordained a ‘ Reader’. 
Gallus in A.D, 351 was associated in the Empire and made Caesar. 
His misgovernment ended in his being summoned to Constantius, 
and being executed in a treacherous manner. Julian in the mean- 
time had long been secretly attached to the ancient religion. He 
was summoned to Milan by Constantius after his brother’s death, 
and shortly afterwards allowed to study at Athens. In A.D. 354 
he was declared Caesar and sent to Gaul. He won great fame as 
a soldier; and when his troops were ordered to the East they 
rebelled and proclaimed him Augustus, Julian then openly pro- 
fessed heathenism and marched against Constantius; but the 
death of that emperor prevented a civil war. Julian’s short reign 
was an attempt to revive Paganism and to debase Christianity with- 
out persecuting its professors. It was a brilliant but complete 
failure. In A.D, 363 Julian was killed in battle, Pp. 35I—374. 


CHAPTER XVI. 
CONCLUSION OF THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY IN THE EMPIRE. 
A.D. 363—381. 

On the death of Constantius the Western Church reverted to 
the Nicene Creed, mainly owing to Athanasius’ wise action on his 
return to Alexandria. Antioch also, despite a serious schism, 
favoured orthodoxy. Jovian, Julian’s Christian successor, was 
followed by the impartial Valentinian in the West, and Valens, who 
favoured the Hlomoeam Arian, in the East. Great influence was 
exercised by the Cappadocian Fathers—Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, 
and Gregory of Nazianzus—on the side of orthodoxy, and, despite 
the imperial displeasure, the Creed of Nicaea was daily gaining 
ground. New heresies were arising as to the divinity of the 
Holy Spirit and the Godhead and Manhood in our Lord. After 
the defeat and death of Valens at Adrianople there was no further 
question as to the triumph of Nicene doctrine ; and at the Council 
of Constantinople in A.D. 381 the Nicene Creed became the creed 
of the Empire. 


CHAPTER XVII. 
THE RXIGN OF THEODOSIUS AND THE FALL OF PAGANISM. 
A.D, 381—395. 


With the close of the Second General Council the Creed of 
Nicaea became the sole legal religion in the Roman empire, 


CONTENTS. XV 


Arianism, proscribed by law, made its home among the Teutonic 
nations. The old religions began to totter to their fall, as the 
destruction of the Serapeum at Alexandria and of the heathen 
shrines in Gaul testified. The rigid enforcement of the new laws 
zgainst heresy in the case of Priscillian in Spain shocked the 
Christian conscience, but foreshadowed the days of persecution. 
Rome was at the height of its prestige as the holy city of antiquity ; 
but even there the old faith received a shock. St. Ambrose at 
Milan influenced Gratian to decline the office of Pontifex 
Maximus, and made Valentinian I1. refuse to restore ‘ Victory’ to 
the Senate House. Rome, under the fostering care of Pope 
Damasus, became acentre of Christian reverence. Ambrose in the 
meantime resisted the Empress Justina’s attempt to obtain recog- 
nition for Arianism at Milan, and exercised great influence over 
Theodosius when that emperor came to Italy. By the close of 
the fourth century the foundations of mediaeval Christianity were 


laid. Pp. 398—433- 


CHAPTER XVIII. 


THE EASTERN CHURCH AND THE THIRD AND FOURTH 
GENERAL COUNCILS. 


A.D. 395—452. 


The Empire in theory remained united, but was practically 
divided by the descendants of Theodosius into East and West. 
Arcadius in Constantinople was the tool of ambitious favourites. 
The career of Synesius is an example alike of the state of transition 
in thought, and of the miseries of the provinces. The story of 
Chrysostom’s patriarchate at Constantinople shews the dissoluteness 
of the capital, the jealousy of Alexandria, and the power of the 
Emperor. This saint is a true sufferer for righteousness, The 
controversy about the two Natures of our Lord is traced from 
Apollinarius, who maintained practically one Nature in Christ, the 
Divine. The School of Antioch laid undue stress on the Human 
side of our Lord, but they were not challenged till Nestorius 
allowed the title Zeotokos to be refused to the Blessed Virgin. 
This was the signal for controversy. Cyril of Alexandria obtained 
the condemnation of Nestorius at Ephesus, and then came to 
terms with the Antiochene theologians. His successor, Dioscorus, 
managed to secure the support of Theodosius II., and finally, when 
Eutyches was accused of Monophysitism, obtained his acquittal at 
the ‘Latrocinium’ of Ephesus. On the death of Theodosius, 
Marcian and Pulcheria supported Leo, whose ‘Tome’ was 
accepted at Chalcedon, and the Egyptian church was gradually 
alienated from that of the Empire. PP- 434—476. 

Supplementary Note on ‘‘The Christological Controversy 
and Modern Thought.” pp. 476—478. 


Xvi CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER XIX. 
THE WESTERN CHURCH. 
A.D. 400—46I. 


The Latin aptitude for organization and government saved the 
Church whilst the Western Empire crumbled to pieces. In the 
fifth century the Western Church took the form which continued 
to exist for more than a thousand years, The three great factors 
in moulding it were (1) Jerome, the scholar, who produced the 
Vulgate; (2) Augustine, the theologian, who gave (@) an impulse to 
piety by his Con/fesstons, (6) a theory of the Church in his conflict 
with Donatism, (c) a theory of Grace in his refutations of Pela- 
gianism, (@) an ideal of government in his Czty of God; (3) the 
Church of Rome with her great Popes, Innocent and Leo the Great. 
Leo established his supremacy over Gaul, in the case of Hilary of 
Arles and Celidonius, as well as over Illyricum, Italy, Sicily and 
Spain. He is said to have saved Italy by his boldness in confronting 
Attila, and to have mitigated the horrors of the sack of Rome 
by Gaiseric. He was less fortunate in his interference with the 
affairs of the East; though at Chalcedon he gave the creed to 
Christendom. The greatness of his work lay in consolidating 
Roman Christianity curing the fall of Roman domination in the 
Western Empire. Pp. 479—54I. 


CHAPTER XX, 


ORIENTAL CHRISTIANITY AND THE CHURCHES OUTSIDE 
THE EMPIRE. 


Syrian Christianity implies the Church extending from the 
neighbourhood of Antioch to the Persian Gulf. Its chief home was 
Edessa: its origin the conversion of Abgar the Black, A.D. 50. 
The Syriac Versions are numerous and interesting. Fora long time 
the Diatessaron of Tatian was used in place of the four Gospels. 
Most of the country of Syrian Christianity was within the empire 
of Persia. In Persza the Faith was encountered by the Zoroastrian 
religion, and many Christians endured martyrdom. The Armenian 
is the first national church. Founded by St. Gregory the Illumin- 
ator, it bravely withstood the Persian fire worshippers, and is still 
in existence. The Christianity of the neighbouring country of 
Iberia or Georgia was introduced by the captive maiden St. Nina, 
a kinswoman of St. George. The £¢hiopzan church was founded 
in the days of St. Athanasius by Frumentius and Edesius. It 
continues as the native church of Abyssinia (Habesh), which has 
preserved the Book of Enoch. The Zeutonic peoples were as a 
rule Arians. Their great missionary was Ulfilas, the translator of 


CONTENTS. XVil 


the Bible into Gothic. Jre/and was converted by Papal mission- 
aries. Its first bishop was Palladius, and he was succeeded by 
Patrick, a Briton who had been taken captive to Ireland and was 
educated at Lerinum and Auxerre. Patrick landed near Wicklow 
A.D. 433, and about 441—3 was made Archbishop of Armagh. 
St. Ninian was the apostle of the northern Pic¢s. Ppp. 542— 5606. 


CHAPTER XXII, 
CHURCH LIFE IN THE FOURTH AND FIFTH CENTURIES, 


After the Edict of Milan the Christian Church ceased to be 
a persecuted society and entered upon a new career under the 
zgis of the Empire. The rapidity of its increase during the next 
few centuries is phenomenal, and would have been, humanly 
speaking, impossible but for its complete and elaborate organiza- 
tion. This followed geographically the same lines as the imperial 
system. The great capitals became the leading metropolitan 
churches, and their patriarchs corresponded to the chief officials 
of the Empire. Rome for a long time produced no great bishop ; 
but, nevertheless, the See constantly advanced in influence and 
in the estimation of other churches. Alexandria ruled all Egypt, 
and the power of its bishop extended to Athiopia. Antioch was 
regarded as the chief spiritual authority, not only in Syria but 
throughout the East. Constantinople, as New Rome, gradually 
won the second place and ranked next to the Apostolic See. The 
dioceses in many places were very extensive, the bishops being 
assisted by Chorepiscofi or county bishops. The functions of 
the priests varied in different places: at Rome and elsewhere 
only the bishop preached. The deacons occupied an important 
place. The minor orders were early in existence, and the ministry 
of women, though differing in places, was fully recognised. The 
legality of the marriage of the clergy was recognised, but not 
universally. Councils were the legislative and disciplinary courts 
of the Church, 

The church buildings are described, especially those of the 
basilican type. Their decorations were lavish. The Sacrament 
of Baptism was administered with much striking symbolism——for 
example at Jerusalem, according to the Catechetical Lectures of 
St. Cyril, who also describes the Eucharistic Service. Preaching 
was very popular in the fourth century and reached a very high 
standard of excellence. The penitential discipline of the Church, 
the holy days, Christian charities, etc., are next treated. The 
passion for relics, the desire to visit holy places, and the survival 
of heathen customs under Christian forms, attest the waning 
spirituality of the Faith. Nevertheless, the Fathers drew a wise 
distinction between essentials and non-essentials. The Monastic 


XVIil CONTENTS. 


movement supplied an outlet for Christian zeal when the days 
of persecution were ended. Cenobitic life tended to curb its 
early extravagances, and made it the tremendous force which 
it ultimately became. ; pp. 567—588.. 
APPENDIX A. 
ON THE OPHITES, BASILIDES AND VALENTINUS., 


pp. 589—595. 


APPENDIX B. 
ROMAN CHRISTIANITY IN THE FirsT FouR CENTURIES, 
(By the Rev. A. C. JENNINGS, M.A., Rector of King’s Stanley.) 
The Catacombs and Early Monuments, 


pp. 596—616, 


INDEX, 
pp. 617—648. 


im 


99 
99 
99 
bY 
99 


DATES OF IMPORTANT EVENTS, erc. 


ews under Greek domination. 


B.C. 535—336 Vadaly under Persian domination, 
333—175 


175—135 The age of the Maccabees. 

161—144 Jonathan, high priest. 

144—135 Simon, high priest. 

135—106 John Hyrcanus, high priest and ethnarch. 


Book of Enoch. 


106—77 Alexander Jannaeus, high priest and king of Judaea, 
77—65 Hyrcanus II. 


Pompey takes Jerusalem. 

Herod appointed Governor of Galilee. 
Herod King of Judaea. 

Herod makes Aristobulus high priest. 
Battle of Actium. 

Death of Mariamne, 

Herod rebuilds the Temple. 

Herod’s sons by Mariamne executed, 


§ (cerca) BIRTH OF JESUS CHRIST. 


4 
6 


7 
26 


Death of Herod. 

Deposition of Archelaus, ethnarch of Judaea. 
Rebellion of Judas of Galilee. 

Pontius Pilate Procurator of Judaea. 


29 (circa) THE CRUCIFIXION AND RESURRECTION. 


41 


130 
130 
133 
135 


138 


Herod Agrippa I. king of Judaea. 

Death of Herod Agrippa. 

St. Paul at Corinth. Jews expelled from Rome. 

Pomponia Graecina accused of practising foreign superstition. 

St. Paul writes to the Romans. 

St. Paul at Rome. Epistle to the Philippians, 

Fire at Rome. Persecution by Nero, 

St. Peter and St. Paul martyred in Rome. 

Destruction of Jerusalem. 

Death of Pomponia Graecina. 

Clement of Rome writes to the Corinthians. Flavius Clemens 
(Consul A.D. 95) executed, and Flavia Domitilla banished. 

Cerinthus (Judaizing Gnostic). 

Pliny’s Letter to Trajan. Martyrdom of Ignatius, 

Jews of Cyrene cause disturbances. 

Letter to Diognetus. 

Papias bishop of Hierapolis. 

(circa) Montanus in Phrygia, Basilides. 
(circa) Shepherd of Hermas. Pius I. bishop of Rome. 

Hadrian at Athens. Afo/ogies of Quadratus and Aristides. 

Suppression of the revolt of Barcochab. Jerusalem called Aelia 
Capitolina. 

Justin Martyr’s First Apology. 


139 (cérca) Marcion at Rome. Valentinus at Rome. 


XIX 


XX 


DATES OF IMPORTANT EVENTS, ETC. 


A.D. 154 Polycarp at Rome. 


156 Polycarp martyred at Smyrna. 

165 Justin martyred at Rome. 

166 The Annus Calamitosus. Plague at Rome. 

171 Theophilus bishop of Antioch. 

174 The war against the Quadi. ‘‘ The Thundering Legion.” 

177 Persecution at Lyons and Vienne. 

180 Persecution at Madaura in Africa. 

182 Irenaeus bishop of Lyons. 

193 Empire sold by auction to Didius Julianus. 

196 (czrca) Praxeasat Rome. Montanists excommunicated by Victor. 

200 (circa) Clement of Alexandria. 

202 Law of Septimius Severus forbidding persons ‘‘/udaeos fieri”’. 
Monarchian disputes at Rome. Tertullian becomes a 
Montanist. Martyrdom of Perpetua and her companions. 

219 Heliogabalus brings the idol of Emesa to Rome.  Callistus 
bishop of Rome. ' 

220 (circa) Hippolytus writes the Phzlosophumena. 

231 Origen ordained a presbyter in Syria. 

236 Hippolytus banished to Sardinia. 

244 Beryllus of Bostra retracts his erroneous views of the Trinity. 

247 Dionysius bishop of Alexandria. 

248 Cyprian bishop of Carthage. 

250 Persecution by Decius. 

251 Novatian made bishop of Rome in opposition to Cornelius. 

257 Edict of Valerian against the Christians. 

258 Martyrdom of Cyprian. 

260 Gallienus makes Christianity a re/egio léctta. 

269 Synod to condemn Paul of Samosata. 

276 Manes the heresiarch flayed alive by order of Persian king. 

284 Accession of Diocletian. 

303 Persecution under Diocletian. First three edicts. 

304 Fourthedict. Illness of Diocletian. 

308 Severe persecution under Galerius. 

310 Edict of Toleration by Galerius. 

311 Maximin persecutes in Syria. 

312 Battle of the Milvian Bridge. 

313 Defeat of Maximin by Licinius. Edict of Milan, 

314 Synod of Arles. 

316 Constantine pronounces sentence against the Donatists. 

318 Outbreak of the Arian dispute at Alexandria. 

321 Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, excommunicates Arius. 

321 Constantine grants the Donatists freedom of conscience. 

The Dzes Venerabilts Sols to be observed as a holiday. 

323 Final defeat of Licinius. Constantine sole emperor. 

325 Council of Nicaea. 

326 Death of Crispus. 

327 Helena’s visit to the Holy Land. 

330 Eustathius, bishop of Antioch, deprived. 

334 Constantinople completed. 

335 Synod of Tyre. 

336 Athanasius banished to Tréves. Death of Arius, 

337. Death of Constantine. 

339 Athanasius goes to Rome. 


ai 


DATES OF IMPORTANT EVENTS, ETC. 


Council of the Dedication, at Antioch. 
Councils of Sardica and Philippopolis. 
Deposition of Stephen, bishop of Antioch. 
Return of Athanasius to Alexandria. 

Revolt of Magnentius. Death of Constans. 
Photinus condemned at Sirmium. 

Defeat of Magnentius at Mursa. 

Councils at Milan. Constantius visits Rome. 
Expulsion of Athanasius from Alexandria. 
Arian triumphs at Ariminum and Seleucia. 
Homoean Synod at Constantinople. 

Death of Constantius, 

Julian at Antioch. 

Death of Julian. 

Revolt of Procopius. 

Semi-Arians approach Liberius. 

Election of Basil to See of Caesarea in Cappadocia, 
Death of Athanasius. 

Ambrose bishop of Milan. 

Defeat and death of Valens at Adrianople. 
Theodosius Augustus in the East. 

Second General Council at Constantinople. 
Death of Gratian. 

Troubles between Ambrose and Justina at Milan, 
The imperial statues thrown down at Antioch. 
Conversion of St. Augustine. 

Destruction of the Serapeum. 

Massacre of Thessalonica. 

Death of Valentinian II. Usurpation of Eugenius, 
Death of Theodosius. 

John Chrysostom bishop of Constantinople. 
Exile of Chrysostom. 

Rome taken by Alaric. 

Synod of Diospolis. 

Pelagianism condemned. 

Nestorius bishop of Constantinople. 

Vandals invade Africa. 

Death of Augustine. 

Third General Council, at Ephesus, 

Carthage taken by Gaiseric. 

Leo elected Pope. 

Death of Cyril of Alexandria, 

The Latrocintum at Ephesus. 

Death of Theodosius II. Pulcheria marries Marcian. 
Battle of the Catalaunian Fields (Chalons). 
Fourth General Council, at Chalcedon, 

Rome sacked by Gaiseric. 

Death of Leo the Great, 


a Pa 2 
’ t J 


CONTEMPORARY EMPERORS AND 
BISHOPS OF ROME. 


ed 


EMPERORS. BISHOPS. 
Tiberius 
Caius (Caligula) 
Claudius 
DUPER rere ccd cane o5h 055 552658 beaded cccecccec St. Peter and St. Paul in 


Galba Rome. 
Otho 280 068 04046805 008 086 86004 O94 888 SE5888 Linus 
Vitellius 


MGs Bete ed ecabatinasencesdonsaxses sees. Anencletus 

oe Nesg Pith ide casasivesies sésenrcerces) Clement 
Euarestus 

PRMIM INR e ceo vavsn pao nx seca vececs ivi'see ses vous’ } Alexander 
Sixtus I. 

Telesphorus 

Hyginus 

Pius I. 

Anicetus 

Soter 

Eleutherus 

Commodus A.D. 

PRIOR srabipcadhenkontatarscsease ces snecsioos see LOO. VICCOF 

BM BTS os das oss Sse sccacs es pesone ees sue 

Septimius Severus............0sssceceseseeveee 198 Zephyrinus 

RAG CANSCUIG os ccecaccseavesevsosase one 

DRIER sc a cvaseleicevan nes teeces mardvassves 

BPR OR Coos isare cons se saccesosssscsesse. 219 Callistus T, 

PRIGZAGGED SEVELUS ...05.c0cccsccecscescesenes - 223 \ Urban I. 

isd ssiscdessscerr-conse 290. POntanuy 

Maximin ‘the “Thracian .. siats cobaececdincnsseas. 235% 0 AADLETOS 

Two Gordians ...... GiiRis oes re sak bhagss sont) 250+ 1d A UIAT 

DRIER Lela r espa usvnccseecosvevses sectoncen 

BE CP TADIAY ines cxccevenecarageiececs ces 

BO eres ti cea tases! <Givedecssed castes vasccvves 

ee a reuse sessccsseseee 25% Cornelius 

TT CUMSIBOUG wan cin sonnentee vesesecsceditersacvesess 252. Liticius 

Aemilianus .... Aiides ancseashere¥ 014 ong un LOD Ue 

Valerian and Gallienus.... Gisistiuere ey) PLAS LL 

BRO UGUT,o teteesenvsspeessscarncvevsesssesseom 259 Dionysius 

REM 1519 faicactnsecetrtaseseceociacsesageses,, 200. Fr G@lN ski 

Aurelian ...... Darah ionbas baageds sh acs (oe sen terdas 

ccc < arabe ia2eds agasnauecsmiveaas + 275). LUCY CUINUS 

BSR en kata tu cox chs cu 060 ak sem.osnessaune 


Hadrian SSO 8S2 SOD O46 FHS 080 OF 080988 08 898 O08 680060 


precise dates uncertain. 


Antoninus Pius 206000059598 099 090800 008 008200008 


Marcus Aurelius 208 CGC 006 090508 00+ 000 080 -0- 20% 


Xxlv CONTEMPORARY EMPERORS AND BISHOPS OF ROME. 


EMPERORS. 


CATUS A Use cess ceag ah aees Saa¥acaxcaucusner ers ces 
Carinus and Numerian.............sscessesees 
Diocletian’ alone 50.57.74 o.c.tsaear cokes: 
Diocletian and Maximian 
Diocletian and Maximian, Augusté 
Constantius and Galerius, Caesars i 
Constantius and Galerius, Augusté 


305 | Severus and Maximin Daza, Caesars 


Constantine, Caesar 306 


Galerius, Maximin Daza, 
ee COC SSe 00086 


307 Constantine, Licinius 


313 
323 


sarc Constans (337—350) 


35° 


361 
363 


A.D. 
364 


(Maximin, Maxentius) 

Constantine and Licinius .........seccessesces 
Constantine alone ............se06 caeouied sisbecs 
Constantine II. (337—340) 


Constantius 
Constantius alone (350—361) 


with Gallus, Caesar (351—354) Sanat 4 { 352 
93 


with Julian, Caesar (354301) 
Julian ...... devsoncecces sehecuarans 
JOVIAN .. cpisinenentaclenaaehess enuneyacnepn tes 
[Empire divided] 
WEST. | A.D. EAST. 
Valentinian I. 364... Valenesijcsccaxes 


Gratian (375—383) 


375 {Valentinian I II, Set sececereeceeses 


475 


eae sees 379. Theodosius I... 


[Theodosius sole Emperor 392395: J 


Augustulus 


A.D. 


BISHOPS. 


283 Caius 


296 Marcellinus I. 


304—308 See vacant. | 


308 Marcellus I. 

310 Eusebius 

311 Miltiades 

314 Silvester 

336 Marcus 

337. Julius 
Liberius 


(Felix, anti-pope) 


366 Damasus 
»» (Ursicinus, ants-pope) 


384 Siricius 


395 Honorius .....00s: 395 Arcadius . 
nic pealp liens ve ROMER : seeeeese 398 Anastasius 
Reprarns ryy: «Ges sevens vee bews wieleralt iiild ate teE et Maem 
eias sue nes "408 Theodosius II.. 
oboe Gap Qns.ds'bio eivce sun cctiemehiekceeag nme | ania nn 
a .. 418 Boniface I. 
5,  (Eulalius,aztz-pope) 
e424 Valentinian [I]. .c...c.civesszesesecoseseauansiee 2m (eine mmemnn 
sandoRabes an hess anmeedenactounaes sosvee 432) DOUXte Anas 
aessaveuaten per caswesecsandeneeqs saul iaatglshadae Gn oe/e gi ia iia: ini 
sstssebedectsacceesevese, 450 >). UlCheria and Marcial 
455 Maxims. (0 vsscscesssnnss sstuesueamecnte oe enees 
457: Majoran yids 457  LeolI., the Thracian 
«(401 Libius Severus .a5.- ccoesueenee es 461 Hilarus 
[Ricimer, without the e ttle) 
467. Anthems ....\...deccesececemeueseuceonsooese ven) GIMeiEs tn tna anna 
472 Olybrius (ches ee ee 
473. Glycerius: 3.0 iisees pone oon aus ee cee ee 
474 Julius Nepos...... 474. Leolll., the Younger 
Romulus 475 Zeno the Isaurian 


THE HISTORY OF 


; 5 
. 
' 
‘ 
i n 
! 
é9 / 

i 
oe ae Pee ‘ 
4 ‘4 * L” 
‘ee wm sl he ie 


CHRISTIAN CHURCH 


THE HISTORY OF 
THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 


CHAPTER: -I, 
THE PREPARATION FOR CHRISTIANITY. 


BrroreE entering upon the history of the Christian 
Church it is necessary to enquire how it came to pass 
that such an institution became possible. For, while 
recognising the special work of God’s providence in | 
the planting of Christianity upon earth, we are equally 
bound to admit that He employs natural means for 
the furtherance of His purpose. The Apostle is writing 
with historical accuracy when he tells the Galatians 
that “when the fulness of the time came, God sent 
forth His Son” ;# and, humanly speaking, it is difficult for 
us to imagine that Christianity could have made rapid 
progress at any earlier period of the history of mankind. 
The constitution of primitive society would have been 
an insuperable bar to the preaching of the gospel; nor 
could a universal religion have had any attractions 
so long as the ancient ideas of national cults and tribal 
gods retained their hold on the imaginations of men. 
Before the civilized world could be prepared to receive 
Christianity, it was necessary that the narrow and 
exclusive spirit which is so greatly fostered in small 
nationalities should be on the wane, and that a general 
desire should arise among men to acknowledge the 


I, Gal. iv. 4 
A 


4 ALEXANDRIA. (CH. L 


ancient worship of Israel—the holy spot, the altar and 
the sacrifice—had no place in the new assembly, where 
men might meet to worship the God of their fathers 
outside the limits of the Holy Land without a sanctuary 
or priesthood. In this way it became possible for the 
religion of Israel to exist throughout the world, and men 
became familiarised with the idea of a faith forming a 
bond of brotherhood. When Israel ceased to be a nation 
it became a church, the limits of which were not defined 
by the boundaries of a small territory, but by the words 
of a revealed law and by acommon faith. ‘Thus in the 
Israel during Silence of the Persian period, Israel was 
the Grecian being prepared for a more active sphere 
Rosas ek of work under the Macedonian conquerors 
Ve ’ of Western Asia; the dispersion, which 
had hitherto been directed eastward, now taking a west- 
ward course. In addition to Jerusalem and Babylon, 
Alexandria, founded by Alexander in B.c. 332, became 
the third great centre of Judaism. The foundation of 
this city, which still continues to be the chief link 
binding together East and West, marks the commence- 
ment of a new phase of human life. Three peoples 
most different in character were assembled in one city 
which the genius of the Macedonian conqueror had 
chosen for the trading capital of his empire. The 
Egyptian, the Jew, and the Greek became fellow citizens 
of Alexandria, and the influence of each nation was felt 
by the other two. It was here that the Jews first studied 
the philosophy of Greece and translated their Scriptures 
from the ancient Hebrew. More liberal ideas than had 
hitherto been possible began to prevail, and the leading 
Jewish teachers hastened to recognise that the wisdom 
of the heathen was illumined by many divine truths. 
The national pride of the Jewish doctors, as well as their 
consciousness that all truth must be a revelation of the 
One True God, led them to endeavour to prove that the 
great philosophers of Hellas had borrowed from the 


in any way prominent in the history of the struggle under the Maccabees. 
We can only infer that meetings of Jews for the purpose of study of the 
Law and worship existed from the time of the Captivity and even earlier, 
(Ezek. viii. 1, xiv. I, xx. I, xxxiii. 31.) In N.T. times the synagogue was 
well known as an ancient institution, Acts xv. 2I. : 


ieee a Se 


CH. 1.] JEWS AND GREEKS, 5 


teachings of the Hebrew prophets, and that the real 
master of such teachers as Pythagoras and Plato was 
the great lawgiver Moses.’ Nor did Jewish theologians 
disdain to use the language of Greek philosophy to 
express their views concerning the nature and being of 
God. It seemed at first as though there would be 
harmony between two nations so utterly different in 
temperament as the Hellenic and the Jewish. The 
Greeks were not at first repelled by their contact with 
Judaism. Alexander treated the Jews with great favour, 
and the Ptolemies and Seleucidae agreed in their policy 
of granting privileges to the nation. The widely ac- 
cepted legend that the Sacred Books of the Hebrews were 
translated at the instigation of Ptolemy Philadelphus 
is an example of the interest the Greeks felt in the 
religion of their fellow settlers in Alexandria. 

The story of the translation of the Septuagint, as 
the Greek version of the Scriptures was termed, related 
in a supposed letter from a Greek named Aristeas to 
his friend Philocrates,* is an example of the eagerness 
with which the Alexandrian Jews sought to prove the 
honour in which their sacred books were held by the 
first Greek kings of Egypt; and a literature of forgeries 
rapidly grew up with the object of shewing that the 
most revered teachers of antiquity were imbued with 
the spirit of the Hebrew sages. The venerable names 
of Orpheus and of the mysterious Sibyls were attached 
to hymns and oracles designed to glorify Judaism in 
the eyes of the Greeks; and literary frauds of this 
description were for a considerable time practised at 


I. Hermippus (B.C. 200) traced some of the doctrines of Pythagoras 
to Jewish sources, Josephus ¢. Apzonem 1. 22. Aristobulus, who is quoted 
by Eusebius in his Praeparatio Evangelica and by Clement of Alexandria 
in a commentary on the Pentateuch addressed to Ptolemy Philometor, 
maintains that Pythagoras, Socrates, and Plato all followed Moses in his 
teaching about the word of God. See esp. Praep. Ev. X11. 12. 

2. For Alexander’s visit to Jerusalem see Josephus, Amz. XI. viii. 4, 5. 
He allowed the Jews to enlist in the army and yet obey their own laws. 
For Seleucus Nicator and Antiochus the Great, see Jos. Antzg. X11. iii., 
and for Ptolemy Philadelphus, Jos. Am¢zg. x11. ii. Mahaffy, Zhe Empire 
of the Ptolemzes, and art. ‘ Israel and Greece’, /uterpreter, July, 1907. 

3. The letter is printed separately in Havercamp’s edition of Josephus, 
See also Swete, /ntroduction to the Old Testament in Greek, p. 519. 


6 JUDAISM IN PALESTINE. (cH. 1 


Alexandria by Jews and Christians alike.’ Not without 
significance also was the attempt to make a Holy 
Land in Egypt itself. Onias, the son of the High 
Priest of that name, fled to Egypt after the murder of 
his father, B.c. 171, when the High Priesthood was 
usurped by the unscrupulous Menelaus. Onias rendered 
important services to Ptolemy Philometer in his war 
with his brother Physcon, and was created Ethnarch 
of the Jews of Alexandria. Ptolemy at his request 
granted to Onias the temple at Leontopolis in the 
Heliopolitan nome. As Onias was undoubtedly the 
legal High Priest, we have the remarkable example of 
a temple built in defiance of the Law served by High 
Priests of the purest descent; and this anomaly continued 
down to the time of the destruction of the Temple 
at Jerusalem.’ | 

The peaceful relations between the Jews and Greeks 
of Alexandria are in marked contrast with the bitter 
feuds which distracted the Holy Land. The glorious 
High Priesthood of Simon the Just, B.c. 270, closed a 
period of tranquillity. Of this great man history is 
comparatively silent, but as Gratz truly remarks, “It 
is always a favourable testimony to an historical person- 
age when tradition gives her voice in his favour.” The 
author of Ecclesiasticus describes in poetical language 
with all the richness of Oriental imagery the appearance 
of Simon when he officiated in the Temple. His practical 
wisdom is evidenced by the improvements he carried 
out at Jerusalem; and his recorded sayings give us 
a high idea of the largeness of his mind and the 
generosity of his sentiments. With him ends the 


1, See Edersheim, Yesus the Messiah, bk. 1. ch. 3. The most 
important are the Szby//ime Oracles (part of bk. 111. dates from B.C. 160) ; 
the Book of Enoch, the oldest parts of which date from about B.c. 170; and 
the Book of Fubilees, probably written about the time of Christ. 

2. Josephus, Axfzg. XIII. iii, Onias supported his right to build a 
temple by quoting Isaiah xix. 18, 19, that ‘‘ there should be an altar to the 
Lord in the midst of the land of Egypt”. The very name of the city was 
said to have been given by the prophet. ‘* One shall be called the city of 
Heres,” that is Heliopolis, the City of the Sun. See Milman, est. of the 
Fews, il. 25. 

For Simon the Just see Ecclus. L.: vv. 1—4, his care for the 
safety of Jerusalem; 5—2I, the magnificence with which he conducted 
the services of the Temple. His pupil Antigonus of Socho has preserved 


CH. 1.] JUDAISM PERSECUTED. 7 


age of the ‘men of the Great Synagogue’, as the teachers 
from Ezra to Simon are styled, and the struggle between 
Judaism and Hellenism commences. Into the details 
of this great contest it is unnecessary to enter. It is 
sufficient to remark that it culminated in the heroic 
struggle sustained by Mattathias the priest of Modin 
and his sons headed by Judas the Maccabee against 
the mad attempt of Antiochus Epiphanes to Hellenize 
Judaea.* The results were of the utmost importance 
to Christianity. In the first place, the martyr spirit 
obtained recognition; in the second, the Messianic 
hopes were again aroused. The martyrs of the Mac- 
cabean age taught the world the lesson, that opinions 
for which men are prepared to die possess an unquench- 
able vitality. The obscure and unknown victims who 
suffered nameless tortures rather than abandon the Law 
of their God were the precursors of the Christian martyrs 
whose blood became the seed of the Church. The 
writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews, when he sees the 
approach of persecution, recalls the memory of the Jewish 
martyrs of this period? An age in which men are 
laying down their lives for what they are convinced is 
the truth is sure to be one in which they are led to dwell 
on the belief in a future life, and on the prospects of 
a glorious deliverance. There must be a growing con- 
viction that the God in whose name they are suffering 
two characteristic sayings of Simon. See Gritz, History of the Jews, 
ch. xxi. His date is uncertain, as from the Talmudic accounts it is not 
clear whether he was Simon I. (300—292) or Simon II. 

1. Five books of Maccabees are extant. The first book, which 
formerly existed in Hebrew, relates the events from B.c. 170 to 135. The 
second book begins with the attempt of Heliodorus to rob the Temple and 
closes with the defeat of Nicanor by Judas: B.c. 180 (?) to 161. The third 
book is probably of Alexandrian origin and relates events before the reign 
of Antiochus Epiphanes. Its date has been placed as late as A.D. 67. 
The fourth book is also entitled ‘ About the Sovereignty of Reason’, and 
is ascribed to Josephus by Eusebius and St. Jerome. The fifth book 
contains a History of the Jews from the time of Heliodorus to that of our 
Lord. A translation of the three books not in our Apocrypha has been 
published by Dr. Cotton. 

2. Heb. xi. 35. ‘‘ Others were tortured, not accepting deliverance.” 
With this compare II Maccabees vi. 30, where Eleazar says ‘‘ To the Lord 
... it is manifest that whereas I might have been delivered from death I 
endure sore pains.” 

3- II Maccabees abounds with allusions to a future life: vii, 14, 36, 
xii, 43, xiv. 46. 


8 NEW TRUTHS GRASPED. (CH. L 


has joys untold in store for His saints whom He is 
preparing shortly to avenge. The Jews in their struggle 
with Antiochus Epiphanes and his successors were un- 
doubtedly animated by these hopes, to which their, 
familiarity with the Old Testament gave a strong” 
Messianic colouring. Without entering into a discussion 
as to the exact date of the Book of Daniel, we may 
remark that its narratives of the heroism of the Jews in 
Babylon were well calculated to inspire the courage of 
the persecuted people with fresh determination, whilst 
the predictions of the rise and fall of earthly empires 
which were to precede the establishment of the eternal 
kingdom of God were found to be particularly consoling., 
It has been truly said that the Book of Daniel is the first 
philosophy of history. The nation is widened into the 
world, the restored kingdom of Judah into a universal 
kingdom of God.!_ With these hopes of a Messianic 
kingdom, that which Ewald rightly calls the innermost 
impulse of all.true religion rose with growing strength, 
and the hopes of immortality and resurrection received a. 
firmer and clearer development than before* —s_ 
In the Apocalyptic Book of Enoch, 
Book of Enos parts of which have been assigned to 
the time when, during the reign of John 
Hyrcanus, Demetrius II. was pursuing his career of con-. 
quest along the coast of Palestine, the Messianic hopes 
were very Clearly expressed.* The Messiah was made to 


1. Bp. Westcott, Smith's Dict. of the Bible, vol. 1. art. ‘Daniel . 

2. Ewald, History of Israel, vol. V., p. 305, English Translation. 
The Book of Enoch is possibly alluded to by St. Jude (vz. 14, 15), 
but it is an open question whether he derived his quotation from tradition 
or from writing. It is quoted in Barnabas (Ep. IV. 3, XVI. 5). Tertullian 
(De Cultu Feminarum 1. 3) mentions it as Scripture, “* though not received 
by some, nor admitted into the Jewish canon. ” It was known to St. 
Augustine (Civ. Dez xv. 23) ‘‘ Unde illa, quae sub ejus nomine proferuntur 
et continent istas de gigantibus fabulas, quod non habuerint homines patres, 
recte a prudentibus judicantur non ipsius esse credenda.” See also AZost. 
Const. vi. 16, where the forgeries under the names of Moses, Enoch, and 
Adam are condemned. The book was rediscovered in Aithiopic by Bruce 
the Abyssinian traveller in 1773. It has been frequently translated. A few 
Greek fragments are preserved by George Syncellus, and another copy was 
discovered in 1886 at Akhmin. The latest edition is by R. H. Charles, 
Oxford, 1893. Seealso Ewald, Hist. Zsrael, vol. V. p. 348. Enoch is now 
pronounced to be a composite work, the ground-work of which is assigned 
by most to the second century B.c., but some of the remainder belongs ta 


CH. 1.] THE PRIESTLY MONARCHY. 9 


appear as both human and divine, predestined by God 
from all eternity. Great trials were to precede his coming. 
A resurrection of the dead was foretold, and the Son of 
Man was to appear on the throne of his majesty.! 
Without entering farther into the history or the 
literature of the second century before Christ it will be 
perceived that the Jews had been taught some truths 
essential to the establishment of a universal religion. 
They had learned that religious communities could be 
formed outside the Holy Land, they had formed the idea 
of a world-wide kingdom of God, they had grasped the 
doctrine of a resurrection, and in addition to this they 
had proved the power of martyrdom as a means of 
preserving and extending their faith. The course of 
history had yet to teach that which they afterwards 
learned with so much difficulty, namely that the king- 
dom of the Truth on be ean its character. ‘ 
ter the death of Judas the Maccabee, 
Secaayy oetricst, B.c. 161, his brother Jonathan continued 
el pocatien the struggle with Syria. The claims of 
144-135, John Alexander Balas to the crown of the 
Hyreanus 135— Seleucidae gave to Jonathan an import- 
108) yarstobulus ance of which he was not slow to avail 
ander Jannaeus himself. Alexander Balas, supported by 
ge aha the Romans, became king of Syria, and 
Ys Tiare his ally Jonathan was made high-priest.? 
It is probable that the ancient line of high-priests had 
already become extinct. From this time the royal and 
priestly powers in Israel were united in one person, and 
it must have seemed as if the ideal of the ancient 
Theocracy was about to be revived. But the priestly 
rule of the Asmoneans, far from being the precursor of 
the establishment of a religious empire, ended in the 
domination of the Herods and the extinction of the 


post-Christian times. Zmcyclopedia Biblica, art. * Apocalyptic Literature’, 
§§ 25, 26. Chaps. i.—xxxvi. are declared to be the oldest piece of 
Jewish literature that teaches the general resurrection of Israel, describes 
Sheol according to the conception that prevails in the N.T. as opposed to 
that of the O.T., or represents Gehenna as a place of final punishment. 
46, § 27. 

fA Bishop Westcott, Jztrod. to Study of Gospels, ch, il. 

2. I Macc, x. 20, 21. Bevan, Jerusalem under the High Priests, 
Sect. 111. 


10 RELIGIOUS SECTS. (cH. 1. 


national independence. From the first the dynasty had 
within itself the seed of national ruin. Judas the 
Maccabee had been the first to make overtures to Rome,’ 
the alliance had been renewed by Jonathan’ and after- 
wards by Simon.’ Thus the royal power of the high- 
priests was fostered by the future destroyers of the 
Jewish people. 

But a more fatal danger arose from the factions es 
the Jews themselves. When the civil and religious 
government is identical, religious disputes are certain 
to distract a country. ‘Questions of faith notoriously 
produce the bitterest animosity, and a priest-king cannot 
fail to take part in controversy. The closing years of 
John Hyrcanus were distracted by the feuds between the 
Pharisees and Sadducees, and in the reign of Hyrcanus II. 
a dispute between that monarch and his brother Aristo- 
bulus led the Romans to interfere. The crafty Antipater 
and his still craftier son Herod saw their opportunity ; 
the Asmoneans were displaced, and Herod reigned as the 
vassal of Rome. 

The fall of the priest-kings ought to have shewn the 
Jews that to establish an earthly empire was for them 
a hopeless task, and without doubt during the govern- 


ment of Herod and the Romans many despaired of the 


coming of a conquering Messiah* The Law and 
tradition became once more the great consolation of 
Israel, and the factions in the state developed into she 
religious schools of thought. 

The origin of the term Sadducee:: is 
not known. The Mishna derives the name 
from Tsedugim (righteous ones). They are- 
said to be the followers of Zadok the disciple of Antigonus 
of Socho, and to have misinterpreted their master’s pre- 
cept, “Be not like servants who serve their Master for the 
sake of receiving a reward,” so far as to deny the life after 
death. This statement however rests on the authority 
of a certain R. Nathan, who wrote a commentary on a 
treatise of the Mishna called Aboth, and probably 


Parties in Ju- 
daism: Sadducees. 


1. I Mace. viii. 

2. I Mace. xii, I—4, 

3. I Macc, xiv. 16—19. . 

4. See Prof. Stanton’s few2sh and Christian Messiah. 


ex, 1.] SADDUCEES AND PHARISEES. II 


flourished about a.p. 1000.' Their leading tenets were 
a belief in free will and a rejection of the traditional 
interpretation of the Mosaic Law, together with a denial 
of the belief in a resurrection, and future rewards and 
punishments. The party was eminently aristocratic in 
its composition and in the policy it adopted. Josephus 
says that when the Sadducees became magistrates they 
addicted themselves to the notions of the Pharisees for 
fear of the people.2, The Sadducees represented the con- 
servative element in Judaism. The statesmen of the 
nation and the priestly aristocracy were fully alive to 
the danger of innovation. The result was that they 
were often intolerant and severe. It was a Sadducean 
high-priest that condemned Christ, and the Sadducees 
were the first to persecute the infant Church. 

_ Though the character of Sadducean Judaism is at 
first sight uninviting, it expresses one of the progressive 
tendencies of the age. ‘The restrictions of Mosaism 
made men desire freedom, and although the Sadducees 
looked to Greece corrupted by luxury and scepticism, 
rather than to the prophetic pictures of a spiritual 
Israel,* their attitude indicates the growth of a feeling 
which found its noblest expression in the phrase of St. 
James, “ The perfect law of liberty.’”® 

The very name of Pharisee has so 
odious a sound in the ears of a Christian 
that we are apt to misjudge the character of a great 
movement in Judaism which was not without effect on 
the diffusion of Christianity. Despite our Saviour’s well 
deserved denunciations of their hypocrisy, the Pharisaic 
party was the representative of a noble effort to reform 


Pharisees. 


1. Hausrath, Mew Zest. Times, vol. 1., p. 136, Eng. Transl. 3 
Josephus, Ami7g. XVIII. i. 43 XII. x. 6; Bell. Jud. 11. viii. 14. The 
popular notion that the Sadducees rejected all the Scriptures except 
the Pentateuch is due to a confusion between their tenets and those of the 
Samaritans. Epiphanius says they are an off-shoot of the Christian sect of 
the Dositheans! Szth’s Dict. Bible, art. ‘Sadducees’. The most important 
allusions to this sect in the New Test. are their denial of the resurrection 
(Matt. xxii. 23; Acts xxiii. 8), of angels (Acts xxiii. 8), their connexion 
with the priestly aristocracy at Jerusalem (Acts v. 17). They are not 
mentioned by St. John. 

2. Jos. Amtig, XVIII. i. 4. 3. Acts iv. I. A 

4. Bp. Westcott, Jtroduction to Study of the Gospels, ch. tt. 

5. St. James i. 25. 


12 JEWISH ASCETICS. [cH 1. 


Judaism. In some respects they resemble the English 
Puritans of the seventeenth century. Both paid the 
utmost regard to Scripture, both numbered in their ranks 
men of the most earnest piety, and in both an unduly 
scrupulous attention to matters of minor importance 
produced a large amount of hypocrisy. The hard legalising 
spirit, which in the Jewish sect led to the most binding 
form of ritualism the world has ever known, in the 
Christian Puritan took an opposite direction; but both 
in their strength and weakness the Puritan and Pharisee 
are nearly related.? 

The chief tenets of the sect resulted from their 
treatment of Scripture. The Pharisees held that the 
Law of Moses was supplemented by a vast oral tradition. 
This had a good and a bad side. To make it impossible 
to break the ordinances of Moses the most complicated 
rules were invented, and the tendency to place legal 
purity above morality was greatly fostered. On the other 
hand, the reverence for tradition marked a crisis in 
religious feeling. It wasa declaration that the Law had 
left something to be desired before it could be a living 
power in Israel. Pharisaism also struck a blow at the 
priesthood by placing the man learned in the Law of 
Moses above the descendant of Aaron, thus preparing 
Judaism for the abolition of the priestly system. More- 
over, although the Law of Moses says nothing about the 
duty of prayer or the doctrine of the resurrection, the 
Pharisees made each an important part of their system. 
Thus while the legalism of the Pharisee and the freedom 
of Christ’s teaching are utterly incompatible, we find 
many important points of contact between them; and 
the Pharisees in the Acts of the Apostles are represented 
as generally less disposed to persecute the Church than 
the Sadducees.? 

oe The object of the Sadducee was to 
; conform himself to the world, that of the 
Pharisee to live in yet separated from it; but the 
Essene introduced a new principle destined to have a 
very powerful influence on the subsequent development of 


1. But see Gritz, vol. 11., ch. i. for a description of the best side of 
Pharisaism. As judges the Pharisees inclined to the side of merey. 
2. Acts v. 34 foll, Acts xxiii. 9. 


cH. 1.] PROSELYTISING JUDAISM. 13 


Christianity. His ideal was to form a kingdom of God 
isolated from the world. He withdrew himself from all 
that was profane in order to be nearer to God. The 
Essene communities were distinguished, partly by an 
excess of Pharisaism, a morbid craving after moral 
purity, and partly by an admixture of foreign customs 
borrowed from the religions of the East. ‘The Essenes 
avoided marriage, the slaughter of animals, and animal 
food; they lived in communities, and their lives were 
regulated by ascetic discipline. Strict Jews in all that 
regarded ceremonial purity, they nevertheless refused to 
take part in the Temple worship because beasts were 
slain there in the sacrifices. 

The multiplication of religious parties 
sufficiently shews the activity of Judaism 
at this period. There was a constant 
unrest, an expectation of a great change. St. Luke 
tells us how saintly minds were constantly looking 
for the consolation of Israel and the coming of the 
kingdom of God.? The Gentiles: seem to have also 
recognised something of the divine mission of Israel. 
Contrary to both their ancient and modern 
custom, the Jews had become energetic 
missionaries, especially among women. Our Lord says 
that the Pharisees ‘‘ compassed sea and land to make one 
proselyte’’,® and the constant mention of the persons who 
worshipped God (ceSouevor) in the Acts of the Apostles 
shews how numerous they must have been in the great 
cities. The heathen were alternately attracted by the 


Judaism in the 
time of our Lord. 


Proselytes. 


I. The Essenes are mentioned by Josephus Am/zg. XVIII. i. 5, 
where he describes their doctrines and says they numbered about 4000; 
and in Bell, Jud. i. viii. 3—13 there is a full account of the sect. Philo 
alludes to them (see F. C. Conybeare’s edition of the Treatise De Vita 
Contemplativa, Oxford, 1895). Pliny (¥. A. v. 15—17) describes their 
communities. The chief early Christian writers who allude to the Essenes 
are Hegesippus in Eusebius 7. &. iv. 22, as one of the seven Jewish sects, 
and Hippolytus, Maer. Ix. 13—22 3; see Bishop Lightfoot’s Excursus on 
the Essenes in his Commentary on the Ep. to the Colossians. 

2. St. Luke ii. 25, 38. 

3. St. Matth. xxiii. 15. 

4 Acts xiii, 43, 50; xvii. 4. Mr. Conybeare in his Excursus on 
the authorship of Philo’s De Vita Contemp/ativa, p. 260, says ‘‘Of Philo’s 
writings a large number have a missionary aim,” and he quotes p. 259 a 
passage from the treatise on Repentance in which Philo speaks of converts 
as a Christian might have done a century later. 


14 THE WORK OF ROME. [cH. 1 


loftiness of the Jewish creed and repelled by the nation 
itself, and it is evident that Judaism per se could not 
have become the religion of the world: for a Gentile to 
accept the faith of Israel was one thing; but it was a 
different thing for him to become a Jew. The history of 
Christianity shews how all that was best in Judaism 
together with far nobler truths than Israel had known 
were presented to the world. Srp 
The Heathen The heathen world had been prepared 
world. for the reception of a universal religion 
stares tal by two important forces supplied by 
oman ew Greece and Rome. One of the greatest 
debts posterity owes to the Greeks is that they first 
taught mankind how to think. The bold questions of 
the Greek philosophy made men enquire into the truth 
of that which custom had taught them. Thus at the 
time of our Lord, when the Roman empire had been 
Hellenised, a spirit of enquiry was abroad ready to give 
new doctrines a hearing. The scornful words of the 
philosophers at Athens about St. Paul shew at any rate 
that men were at least prepared to listen, 

The work of Rome was to unite and organize the 
world, to destroy nationalities, and to improve communi- 
cation. Under her rule men began to move freely from 
place to place, and the Christian preacher went from 
town to town in the track of the merchant. 


x. Acts xvii. 18—20, 


CHAPTER. II, 


THE TIMES OF THE CHRIST. 


WHATEVER opinions men may hold of the revelation 
of God in Jesus Christ, it must be universally admitted 
that His life is the most important epoch in history. 
This must however in a work like the present be touched 
upon with the greatest possible brevity, and in this 
chapter only a very few points can be so much as 
hinted at. 

Our main object must be to speak of the times 
of the Messiah as illustrating the establishment of the 
Christian Church. The one aspect of the Saviour’s 
work which we must keep before us is that of the 
Founder of a society, and it will first be necessary to 
state clearly the popular idea upon which Christ based 
His Church. It was that of a Kingdom of the Heavens,} 
an ideal Hebrew State in which the hope of Israel was 
to be realised. This hope animated the nation more 
strongly as its earthly prospect became darker. Men 
turned from the world with its painful realities to con- 
template a state of things which could only exist ina 
dim and distant future ; and the condition of the Jewish 
community in Palestine amply justified its dissatisfaction 
with the existing position of affairs. 

To form any idea of, Jewish thought in the days 
of our Lord’s ministry it is necessary to bear in mind 
the historical events of the preceding epoch, the most 


1. Matth, iv. 17, x. 7, xiii. 24—53. See also Mark i. 14, 15, ix. 13 
Luke iv. 43, ix. 2, 27, xiii. 29, xvi. 16, xvii. 20, xix. 11, xxi. 31; Acts i. 3. 


16 THE RISE OF HEROD. (CH. IL, 


prominent of which are the fall of the Asmonean dynasty 
and the rise of Herod.’ 


: When John Hyrcanus conquered the 
Antipat 
<e Edomites,? he forced them to adopt the 
erod. 


Jewish religion. This compulsory con- 
version brought in due time a fearful nemesis upon the 
house and nation of the zealous monarch, Antipater, 
an Idumaean of a noble family, became a satrap of 
Idumaea under Hyrcanus II. The power of the As- 
moneans was already on the wane. The priest-kings, 
failing to satisfy the requirements of the strict party of 
the Pharisees, allied themselves with the rival sect of the 
Sadducees, and in B.c. 95 the former felt the sanguinary 
vengeance of their opponents. For some years how- 
ever the kingdom continued to exist, though torn by rival 
factions; and it needed only a disputed succession to 
complete the ruin of the dynasty. This calamity 
occurred when Hyrcanus II., an amiable but weak prince, 
became king; and his brother Aristobulus, a man of 
greater energy but perhaps no greater wisdom, set 
1. To understand this period it is necessary to bear in mind the 
relationship of the descendants of Alexander Jannaeus: 
Alexander Jannaeus 


| | 
Hyrcanus II. Aristobulus 


Alexandra = Alexander Antigonus _ 
| 
Herod = Mariamne Aristobulus 
Aristobulus = Bernice 


Agrippa A Cypros 


/ | 
Agrippa Bernice Drusilla 


2. About 125 B.C. Josephus, 4mfig. x11. ix. 13 Bell. Jud. 1. ii. 6. 
Idumaea or Edom in our Lord’s time was practically the south of the 
Philistine Plain and the Negeb. Thc Edomites by the Law were admitted 
to the full privileges after three generations. They became fanatically 
Jewish during the times of the war with Rome ; Josephus, Bed/. Jud. 1V. iv. 
See G. A. Smith’s Historical Geography of the Holy Land, p. 239. 

3- Josephus, Anztzg. XIV. i. 3. 4. bid. XIII. xiii. 5. 


CH. 11.] RISE OF HEROD. 17 


himself up as a candidate for the throne. It is not 
necessary to enter into the details of this quarrel: both 
claimants sought foreign aid and became mere counters 
in the great game which Rome and Parthia were playing 
for the supremacy of the East. It is enough to say that 
both nations captured Jerusalem, and that the Roman 
success was remarkable for the profanation of the Holy 
of Holies by Pompey, who entered the sanctuary out of 
curiosity, but did not allow the Temple to be plundered.} 
When the Parthians took the city the royal high priest 
Hyrcanus was made a captive and mutilated to dis- 
qualify him from continuing to perform his sacred 
duties.? 

During these troublous times the house of Antipater 
was steadily increasing its influence and importance. 
His son Herod from early youth gave evidence of 
abilities of a high order. When he was still a young 
man he governed Galilee and had suppressed a rebellion 
in favour of Antigonus the son of Aristobulus. For 
putting to death Hezekiah the leader of the insurgents 
Herod was summoned to appear before the Sanhedrin at 
Jerusalem, but he appeared at the head of his armed 
retainers and was acquitted.* Herod was as dextrous in 
dealing with the Romans as he was bold in his acts in 
Syria. He enjoyed the friendship of Antony, and when 
in B.c. 40 he went to Rome for the nominal purpose 
of securing the kingdom for the grandson of Hyrcanus, 
the youthful Aristobulus, he was himself nominated to 
the crown of Judaea. Herod’s star now seemed com- 
pletely in the ascendant. He captured Jerusalem with 
the assistance of the Roman general Sosius,* and gave 
his position a shadow of legitimacy by becoming the 
husband of Mariamne, the last of the Asmoneans except 
the youthful Aristobulus, who in B.c. 34, at the age of 
seventeen, was consoled for the loss of the kingdom by 
his elevation to the High Priesthood. The boy did not 
long enjoy his perilous honours. His beauty and his 


Josephus, Antrg. xiv. ch. iv. § 4. Cicero pro Flacco 28. 
Ibid, xIv. ch. xiii. § Io. 

Ibid. xtv. ch. ix. §§ 2 and 4, 

Ibid. xiv. ch. xvi. 


Syyr 


18 HEROD’S DIFFICULT POSITION. (CH. IL 


undoubted right to the throne won him so much popu- 
larity, that Herod had him removed to Jericho, where 
his death while bathing was generally attributed to the 
connivance of the king. The politic Idumean however 
never lost the support of his Roman patrons: in vain 
did Alexandra, the mother of Aristobulus, invoke the 
powerful aid of Cleopatra; even she could not shake the 
trust reposed in Herod by Antony. Nor did the fall 
of the triumvir after Actium ruin his client. Herod 
immediately set out to visit the victorious Octavian. 
So doubtful was he of returning alive, that he left secret 
orders that Mariamne should be put to death in case he 
perished ; but he found that Augustus was as easily won 
as Antony. Seeing that Herod was the one man who 
really understood the East, the Emperor made him his 
friend and confirmed him in the possession of his 
kingdom. 


Few monarchs have ever had a harder part to play 
than Herod. On the one hand he was obliged to con- 
ciliate the Romans, and on the other to consider the 
interests of his subjects. The former task he performed 
to admiration. No man could have shown greater 
dexterity than Herod in the management of his affairs 
during the stormy death-throes of the-Republic. But 
Herod had his greatest difficulties in his own country, 
and in his household. He, a Jew by religion, had 
to govern a mixed population of Jews, Greeks, and 
Arabians. If he attempted to conciliate the Jews it 
must be at the risk of mortally offending the others, and 
he was supported by the Romans on condition that he 
kept the peace of Syria. He shewed his sympathy with 
his Hellenic subjects by the erection of cities like 
Caesarea, which he named after his Roman master; nor 
did he shrink from the more difficult task of waning 
popularity among the Jews. 


ete In the eighteenth year of his reign Herod 
buil 
‘ie temnie ty proposed to rebuild the Temple. Every- . 
H d. . ° 
Sine Pa an thing was done to satisfy the scruples of 


the people. Priests were trained to build 
fhe inner courts, and the materials were all prepared 
before a stone of the old Temple of Zerubbabel was 


CH. II] REBUILDING OF THE TEMPLE. 19 


displaced. The dedication of the Temple was celebrated 
with a pomp unequalled even by that of Solomon, and 
the Rabbis themselves declared that he who had not 
seen the Temple of Herod had seen nothing beautiful.? 

But although the restoration of the Temple was 
acknowledged by the Jews to be one of the signs of the 
Messianic age, and though a party of them affected to 
consider Herod the Messiah, the majority of the nation 
was not deceived. The people detested him, and the 
temporary popularity which the building of the Temple 
had given him vanished when—perhaps in honour of the 
expected visit of Agrippa—he erected a golden eagle 
over its gateway. 

Herod’s failure to win popularity with the Jews is 
not surprising. He was distrusted as an alien of the 
abhorred race of Edom, against which the prophets had 
so often spoken, and besides he had usurped the crown 
of the now popular family of the Asmoneans. His 
beautiful wife Mariamne was the last surviving repre- 
sentative of the fallen house, and his sons by her 
shared the blood of the deliverers of Israel. His own 
relations detested his connexion with the deposed 
dynasty, and the palace of Herod was full of intrigue. 
It is superfluous to repeat at length the story of the 
troubles of his household and family. 

Mariamne was the first and noblest 

Death of victim. ‘Though Herod loved her greatly 
Bc 99, he had on two occasions ordered her to be 
put to death if he should not return, and 

this secret had twice been betrayed. Mariamne well knew 
her husband to have been the cause of the death of all her 
family. Distrust and fear on the one hand, and an insane 
jealousy fanned by palace intrigues on the other, caused 
her death. Herod was long inconsolable, but the 
rumour of a revolt roused him once more to action. 
Alexandra, the mother of Mariamne, had proclaimed her 
daughter’s sons by Herod to be true representatives of the 
Maccabees. The subject of debate among the doctors of 


1. Josephus, Antig. xv., chap. xi. 
2. Hausrath quotes Succa 5,6; Baba Bathra 4a. 
3. Josephus, Antz. XV., chap. vii. 


20 HEROD’S FAMILY TROUBLES. (CH. 12. 


the schools alluded not obscurely to the political 
question of the day. It was: Is it an advantage fora 
clean person (the sons of Mariamne) to be descended from 
an unclean person (Herod)? ‘The people were also in 
favour of the young princes. But Herod crushed the 
revolt, and put Alexandra, and Costobar the husband of 
Salome, his sister, to death. From this time all seemed 
to prosper with the king. Mariamne’s sons, Alexander and 
Aristobulus, were sent to be educated at Rome, his 
dominions were increased by the favour of Augustus, 
his kingdom now equalled in extent the empire of 
Solomon, and he was constantly erecting new cities 
and fortifications. He became more and more a Gentile 
in sympathies, and his position with Caesar and 
Agrippa was constantly improving. 


When the sons of Mariamne returned 
Execution of the from Rome, Antipater the eldest son of 
went ot «Herod fomented the dissensions between 
his father and brothers, Alexander and 
Aristobulus were taken to Rome, where Herod accused 
them before Augustus. The Emperor succeeded in 
allaying the suspicions of their father, and they were 
acquitted. But Herod’s fears returned when he was 
again at Jerusalem. His sons were tried before 
Saturninus the proconsul of Syria, their father again 
acting as accuser. ‘This time he was able to obtain their 
condemnation, and in B.c, 8 the two heirs to the claims — 
of the Maccabees were put to death. Antipater did 
not reap the reward of his treachery, but was executed 
just before his father expired. This gave rise to the 
jest of Augustus that it was better to be Herod's pig 
(Sv) than his son (viov).} 


The close of the reign of Herod had 

Morvignes e0rea been marked by a Messianic movement 
of Herod’s reign. instigated by the Pharisees. It was 
asserted that the kingdom of Herod would 

certainly pass to his brother Pheroras. Bagoas, an 


eunuch, was persuaded that the prophecy of Isaiah 


1. The jest is given by Macrobius (A.D. 410) in Latin; Augustus 
must however have spoken in Greek to give it point. 


CH. I1.] DEATH OF HEROD. 2I 


would be fulfilled in himself, and that he would havea 
son who should establish the kingdom of Messiah. 
Herod slew all the members of his household who had 
consented to what the Pharisees had said, as well as 
those concerned in the plot. Thus at the very time of 
Christ’s birth Messianic hopes revived and were the 
cause of bloodshed. The story of the massacre of the 
Innocents at Bethlehem is confirmed by the conduct of 
Herod at this time, and the fact of the silence ol 
Josephus as to this point may be explained by the 
supposition that the murder of a few children was 
forgotten in the torrents of blood shed whilst the tyrant 
drew near his end.? Herod died in great 
agony at Jericho. He was reported to 
have commanded the elders of Judaea to 
be assembled in the hippodrome and to be put to death 
when he himself should breathe his last. This sanguinary 
order was never executed. 


Death of Herod. 
B.C. 4. 


It is important to remember the facts of the reign 
of Herod in connexion with the rise of Christianity, 
because the kingdom of Herod bore some external 
resemblances to the kingdom of the Messiah anticipated 
by the Jews. It was co-extensive with the empire of 
David and Solomon; it saw a new and fairer temple 
arise, and an age of prosperity such as had never been 
known before in Israel. But how clearly did the nature 
- of Herod’s kingdom demonstrate the vanity of earthly 
dominion! Founded by craft and servility, secured by 
treachery, and cemented by blood, it fell to pieces when 
he, whose master mind created it, died of a loathsome 
disease at Jericho. 


Herod by will divided his kingdom 


are ta oF among his sons. ‘The territory beyond 
dominions, | the Jordan was bequeathed to Philip, son 


of Cleopatra of Jerusalem: Galilee and 


1. Isaiah lvi. 3—5. 
. 2. Josephus, Antzgueties, Xvi. vi. 5. See Hausrath, vol. I1., pp. 42 
foll. Perhaps the character of Herod has been misunderstood. His task 
of governing his dominions justly as a vassal of the Romans was practically 
an impossible one. See Morrison, History of the Jews under the Romans, 
and Vickers, History of Herod. 


22 HEROD’S WILL (CH. Il. 


Peraea, as a tetrarchy, to Antipas; Judaea, with the title 
of king, to Archelaus. The whole family betook them- 
selves to Rome to wrangle over the inheritance. The 
Jews, by permission of Varus, governor of Syria, sent a 
deputation to beg that the theocracy might be restored 
and Archelaus deprived.’ Revolts broke out in every 
part of Herod’s dominions, and several adventurers laid 
claim to the title of king of Israel. Varus, assisted by 
the Arabs of Aretas and other enemies of the perk 
restored order with great severity. 


The will of Herod was confirmed by 
Augustus, but Archelaus was not allowed 
to assume the title of king. Philip, the only virtuous 
man of the family of Herod, ruled his tetrarchy well,? 
and died a.p. 34. It was to his country our Lord retired, 
when He took refuge from His enemies before the Trans- 
figuration. 


Herod Philip. 


Antipas was much detested by his 
Jewish subjects for being the son of a 
Samaritan mother. He inherited from his father both his 
taste for building and his contempt for Jewish scruples. 
In erecting the city of Tiberias on the site of an ancient 
cemetery he committed a crime unpardonable in the eyes 
of the Rabbis. His worst offence was his adulterous 
marriage with his niece and sister-in-law, Herodias, 
daughter of Aristobulus, and wife of his brother, called 
Philip by St. Mark—not the tetrarch, but the son of 
another Mariamne, daughter of Simon. The Roman 
governors detested him for his intimacy with Tiberius, 
and his character is given in a word by our Lord, Who 
calls him “ that fox’’.’ 


Archelaus administered the affairs of 
Judaea for ten years, after which Augustus 
deprived him of all his dominions and 
exiled him to Gaul. He seems to have governed with 
great cruelty. | 


Herod Antipas. 


Archelaus. 
A.D. 6. 


1. Josephus, Am?. xvii, xi. 2. The parable of the Minae (St. Luke 
xix. I1—27) alludes to the embassy of the Jews against Archelaus. 

2. Josephus, Amz. XVIII. iv. 6, 

3. St. Luke xiii. 32, 77 ddwren ravrg. 


CH. II, JUDAEA A ROMAN PROVINCE. 23 


Judaea made a After the deposition of Archelaus 
Serer rig of Judaea was incorporated into the province 
ides of Syria, and placed under a Roman Pro- 
curator. Quirinus, then governor of Syria, appointed a 
Roman knight by name Coponius to this office, and 
ordered a census to be taken of the popu- 
lation. This was the signal for a revolt 
which began in Galilee under the famous 
Judas... The extreme party separated themselves from 
the Pharisees and took the name of Zealots. Their 
watchword was “No king but the Lord.” The revolu- 
tion was crushed, but the Zealots remained, and their 
fanaticism ultimately led to the ruin of the Jewish 
nation. 


The Zealots. 
A.D. 7. 


M. Ambivius and Annius Rufus, whose 
administrations were unimportant, suc- 
ceeded Coponius as Procurators of Judaea. 
Tiberius’s well-known plan of allowing provincial 
governors a long tenure of office was exemplified 
in the case of Valerius Gratus, who remained eleven 
years, A.D. I5—-26, and deposed no less than four 
high-priests—Annas, Ishmael, Eleazar son of Annas, 
and Simon son of Kamith—leaving Caiaphas in office 
when he departed. But Annas, according to the New 
Testament,® in the opinion of the people remained 
the high-priest.de jure. The administration of Pilate, 
A.D. 26—37, who succeeded Gratus, was 
characterised by cruelty, aggravated by 
the indecision of his character. Pilate became one of 
the most odious of the Roman procurators.‘ His first 
act rendered him unpopular. It had been customary 
to leave the signa of the troops outside Jerusalem, 
in deference to the religious scruples of the Jews; 
Pilate ordered them to be taken into the Holy City. 
The people were very indignant and besieged him 


Roman 
Procurators. 


Pontius Pilate. 


I. Josephus, 4vf2g. XVIII, i. ¥. Acts v. 37. 
2. From the dying exhortation of Mattathias, 1 Macc. ii. 50: ‘*‘Now 


‘therefore, my sons, be zealous for the law, and give your lives for the 


covenant of your fathers.” 

3. St. Luke iii. 2; St. John xviii. 13; Acts iv. 6. 

4. Hausrath refers to Philo Leg. ad Cazum; Josephus, Anftzg. XVIII. 
iii. §§ 1, 2; Bell. Hud, i. ix. §§ 2—4. 


24 CONDITION OF THE HOLY LAND.  [CH, 11 


with petitions. Pilate commanded them to present 
themselves in the circus, and surrounded them with 
troops. The Jews expressed their readiness for martyrdom, 
and the Procurator withdrew the signa. This exhibition 
of weakness was fatal to Pilate’s authority. He ex- 
perienced a similar rebuff when he tried to place golden 
shields inscribed with the names of the Emperor and 
himself in his palace on Mount Zion. The four sons of 
Herod, who were in Jerusalem, remonstrated on behalf 
of the people. Pilate again gave way. His conduct on 
both occasions was in keeping with his behaviour when 
Jesus was brought before him. His extortionate and 
oppressive government made him liable to be accused of 
serious offences, and he was consequently often compelled 
to yield to the voice of popular clamour. 
Such then was the state of the Holy 
Hely of the Land in the days of Christ. The people 
were thoroughly discontented, hating the 
yoke of Herod in Galilee, and that of the procurator in 
Judaea. Taxation was very heavy; our Lord’s discourses 
contain many allusions to debt and imprisonment, to 
men being delivered over to the tormentors, to the debtor 
being sold with his wife and children and all that he had. 
The Gentiles were excluded from all intercourse with 
Jews. To enter a Gentile building was considered by 
the Rabbis a cause of defilement. No food prepared by 
a Gentile might be eaten by a Jew; to sit at his table 
was unlawful. The testimonies of the New Testament 
and of the Talmud on this point are identical; the latter 
says, that if a Gentile is bidden by a Jew to his house 
and is alone even for a minute, all food on the table 
becomes unclean.’ This extreme bitterness of feeling, 
unknown in earlier times, was a forecast of the coming 
struggle between Jews and Gentiles which the next 
generation was destined to witness. It is a strong proof 
of the divine nature of the message of our Lord, that it 
should ignore the popular ideas and feelings of ‘the age 
and pronounce to a people embittered by oppression and 
religious animosity the words, “ Blessed are the penobs 
makers, for theirs is the kin edom of heaven.” 


1. See Hausrath, vol. 11., p. 8, 


Sn Ee ld ak eel ll 


CH. 11] THE BAPTIST. 25 


th Se The life and work of Jesus Christ 
ofthe Bapust, belongs more properly to a detailed ac- 
count of the New Testament times than 

to ecclesiastical history. His coming was prepared by 
the preaching of His kinsman, John the son of the priest 
Zacharias. John resumed the work of the ancient pro- 
phets. He boldly announced that the Kingdom of 
Heaven was at hand. But he declared that this 


Kingdom was to be purely spiritual; to enter it a 


thorough change of heart was necessary, fruits worthy 
of repentance must prepare men for its reception. The 
wideness of the kingdom was proclaimed in John’s words 
to the Pharisees and Sadducees: “ Think not to say 
within yourselves, We have Ahraham to our father; 
for Isay unto you that God is able of these stones te 
raise up children to Abraham.”! John refused to do 
more than proclaim the Kingdom; he denied that he 
was the Christ, or Elias, or the prophet foretold by 
Moses; he was only “the voice of one crying in the 
wilderness’’.2 The advice he gave was wise and 
practical. People were exhorted to be charitable and 
ready to share the good things of life with one another. 
The publicans were told not to exact more than was 
appointed by the government, the soldiers were exhorted 
to abstain from violence and to be content with their 
rations. The ascetic preacher of righteousness shewed 
none of the exclusive zeal of a fanatical zealot, but pre- 
pared the way for a universal Church. One rite alone 
was adopted by John—that of baptism. The nature 
of this ceremony has been much disputed. In later 
times the baptism of John was considered as quite 
distinct from Christian baptism,* and it seems to have 
been rather a prophetic sign than a sacrament. The 
purgation of Israel from all impurity had been recognised 
as a sign of the coming of the Messiah, Zechariah having 
foretold that “a fountain would be opened to the house 
of David for sin and for uncleanness”’ ;° this, as well as 
the Jewish ceremony of baptizing proselytes, and the 


1. St. Luke iii. 8. 2. St. John i. 23, quoting Isaiah xl. 3. 
3. St. Luke iii. 1o—r14. 4. Acts xix. 3—5. 
5. Zech. xiii. 1. (Hausrath.) 


26 THE CHRIST. [CH. 11, 


ablutions of the Essenes, may have been the origin of 
John’s baptizing those who came to him. According to 
Josephus, John taught the people “‘ that washing would 
be acceptable to God if they made use of it, not for the 
remission of some sins only, but for the purification of 
the body supposing still that the soul was thoroughly 
purified beforehand by righteousness.”! The Baptist 
founded a school, apparently of ascetics like himself, 
but he evidently felt that he had initiated a movement 
which One greater than he must perfect, and his own 
exclamation when he saw Jesus after His baptism, 
“Behold the Lamb of God!” led two of his disciples 
to leave him and go to the greater Teacher. One of 
these, Andrew, brought his brother Simon to Jesus, who 
immediately surnamed him Cephas, or Peter. 
Jesus Christ began His preaching by 
in oe ees, using exactly the same words as His 
predecessor; but instead of going into the 
wilderness to attract multitudes by stern denuncia- 
tions and ascetic life, He went among the villages of 
Galilee saying “‘ Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven 
is at hand.”* Without attempting to give the facts of 
His divine life on earth, it is sufficient to observe that 
our Lord appears first to have taught the people the 
nature of the Kingdom of Heaven, secondly to have 
shewn Himself to be the Christ, and lastly to have 
revealed His divinity. 
South The Kingdom of the Heavens or the 
(a) declared the Kingdom of God occupies a very im- 
phe of His portant place in the Gospels. It has 
meeom been well said that descriptions of its 
characteristics and forecasts of its future make up the 
whole central portion of the Synoptic Gospels. Ac- 
cording to the teaching of our Lord this Kingdom is 
sometimes an influence spreading in the world, some- 
times the realization of the hopes of the saints at the 
end of all things, sometimes a truth to be apprehended ; 


I. Josephus, Antzg, XVIII. v. 2, Quoted by Hausrath. 
2: St. John i. 35—37. 


3. St. Matth. il. 1, iv. 17, Meravoctre: iyyixev yap ) Bacthela rap 
ovpayur, 


CH, 11.] PROGRESS OF REVELATION. 27 


but the main idea of His teaching on this subject is that 
it is a new society by which men on earth were to be 
brought into fellowship with God in Heaven by means 
of the Messiah, who is the true head of Israel. ‘This 
Kingdom by His coming was already in the world, and 
men were saying “Lo here!” and ‘Lo there!’ when 
all the time the Kingdom of God was in their midst 
(€vTos var). 

It was not till He had taken refuge 
tera the Beat the sources of the Jordan, in the 

Christ, dominions of the mild and virtuous Philip, 

that our Lord asked His disciples, “‘ Whom 
say ye thatI am?” Peter’s reply, “Thou art the Christ, 
the Son of the living God,” was the occasion for our 
Lord’s declaration that this was the rock upon which 
He would build His Church? But Jesus warned His 
disciples to tell no man as yet that He was the Christ. 
He knew too well that to proclaim Himself Messiah 
would defeat all the divine plan for establishing a 
spiritual kingdom among men; to assume the title of 
Christ at such a time being to declare war with the 
Roman empire and to bring about a revolt like that of 
Judas of Galilee. 

The third stage in founding the King- 
dom of Heaven upon earth was entered 
upon when our Lord went up to Jerusalem. 
No human Messiah, no divinely inspired prophet could 
set up an everlasting kingdom which could never be 
destroyed, which could prevail over sin and death. This 
was the part not of man but of God. Our Lord had 
therefore to proclaim Himself perfect God as well as 
perfect man. This He did in the plainest terms, not 
only to His disciples but also to the Jews when He said, 
“Verily I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I AM.’ 

It only remained that the proofs should be given 
to the world that our Lord was that which He had 


(c) revealed 
His Divinity. 


1. Stanton, 7he Fewesh and Christian Messiah, part 11, ch. i. 
2. St. Matth. xvi. 18. 
St. John vil, 58. ‘Christ was the centre of Abraham’s hope, 
Abraham came into being as man: Christ is essentially as God.” West 
cott 27 loco, 


28 THE TRUE KINGDOM. (CH. IL 


proclaimed Himself to be. His Resurrection, by declaring 
Him to be the Son of God, assured His followers that 
His Kingdom was a reality; His Ascension marked the 
time when He ceased to work visibly among men and 
began to reign invisibly in their hearts. 


r Romi. 4 


CHAPTER III. 


THE CHURCH OF THE APOSTLES. 


Our Lord left His disciples with 
une Christian =~ the assurance that “all authority had been 
urch after the : P : i 

Ascension. COMmitted to Him in heaven and in 
earth,” and with the injunction that they 

were to “make all the nations their disciples.” 
He had given them orders to admit new proselytes 
to their society by the right of baptism, and He had 
instituted the sacrament of His Body and Blood with 
the command, ‘This do in remembrance of me,’’? as 
a bond of union among themselves. He had given the 
assurance, “ Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end 
of the world,’ *® and He had bestowed special powers on 
the eleven Apostles, when He breathed on them and 
said, “‘ Receive ye the Holy Ghost; whose soever sins ye 
remit they are remitted, and whose soever sins ye retain 
they are retained.”* But He had warned His disciples 
not to make any effort to preach their message till they 
had been endued with power from on High. They 
were to make Jerusalem the scene of their earliest 
labours, and to await there the promised gift of the 
Holy Spirit.2 The infant Church faith- 
Election of = fully obeyed the Lord’s command. A 
very small body indeed out of the numbers 

who had heard Jesus, formed the new society. It con- 
sisted of the eleven, the women who had followed Jesus 
from Galilee, the Blessed Virgin, the brethren of our 
Lord, and a few others, and amounted inallto120.6 But 
this small society possessed the power of continuing 


1. St. Matt. xxviii. 18, 19 (R. V.). 2. St. Luke xxii. 19. 
3. St. Matt. xxviii. 20. A. ke) GUN aha ee, 2 Se 
 §. Actsi. 4. 6. Actsi. 13, 14, 15- 


30 FIRST DAYS OF THE CHURCH. (CH. Ut. 


itself, as its first action testified. It was necessary that 
the Apostles should be twelve in number, to represent the 
twelve tribes of ancient Israel. According to St. Peter’s 
statement, the successor to Judas must be a man who 
had been with the Lord since the time of the Baptism of 
John and who had seen Him after the Resurrection, as it 
was a Sine qua non for a candidate for the apostolate to 
have seen the risen Lord.1. Two disciples were selected ; 
the ultimate choice was referred to God. ‘They cast lots, 
and the lot fell on Matthias. 

watts: The real beginning of the active work 

Pontecsst. Of the Christian Church dates from the 

descent of the Holy Spirit on the Feast of 

Pentecost, or Feast of Weeks. The speech of St. Peter, 
shewing that the gift of the Holy Ghost had been 
predicted by Joel as one of the signs of the kingdom of 
Messiah, had an extraordinary effect on his hearers, 
among whom were Jews and proselytes assembled at the 
feast from every nation under heaven. Itis noticeable that 
the peoples of Asia mentioned in the Apostle’s first 
epistle were largely represented on the occasion of his 
first speech.? St. Peter’s statement that Christ had risen 
from the dead, made without fear of contradiction seven 
weeks after the Crucifixion in the city where Jesus had 
suffered, had a most convincing effect on his hearers, 
three thousand of whom were forthwith baptized. 

We are told that the first community 
of believers at Jerusalem put all their 
possessions into one common stock. “No 
one said that anything was his own, but they had all 
things common.” But it appears that it was not 
considered obligatory for a man to contribute his entire 


The Church at 
Jerusalem. 


. pdprupa tis dvacrdcews Acts i. 22. Besides the Twelve, the 
following are called apostles in the New Testament: Barnabas, Paul, 
Andronicus, Junias, and James the Lord’s brother. St. Paul says of him- 
self, ‘‘ Am I not an apostle? am Inot free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our 
Lord?” (1 Cor. ix. 1). Westcott and Hort read od« elul éXevOepos ; odk elul 
amrécronos ; 

2. Acts ii. 9, 1 Pet. i. 1. Cappadocia and Pontus and Asia are 
mentioned in both. 
Such is Renan’s opinion in his work Les Apédtres. Neander 
(Planting of Christianity vol. 1. pp. 24—26) is against this view, 


pT is Ea ee ine 


CH. I11.] JAMES THE JUST. 31 


property to the common fund. Ananias was expressly 
told by St. Peter that the money for which he had 
sold his property was his own;? and his offence con- 
sisted in his having pretended to contribute the whole 
instead of only a part of his property. The Jewish 
believers were very poor, and were in later times 
supported by the churches outside Jerusalem. St. 
Paul was perpetually engaged in collecting funds from 
his Gentile converts for their benefit.2 There were, 
however, some wealthy members, like Barnabas, and 
Mary the mother of Mark, whose house was a place of 
meeting for the disciples. A great number of priests® 
also became believers, and the growing sect included 
several of the Pharisees. The wealthy Sadducees were 
from the first implacable enemies to the faith.’ The 
brethren were Jews of the most orthodox type, attending 
to all the ceremonial Law with scrupulous fidelity; they 
frequented the Temple daily, and met for private prayer 
and the breaking of bread in their own houses.® 
‘ Although Peter was at first the 
James the Lord's acknowledged head of the Church at 
Jerusalem, the leadership soon passed out 
of his hands. No doubt his apostolic zeal soon led him 
to seek a wider sphere of action, and we are told that 
he was entrusted with the gospel of the circumcision.® 
After the persecution by Herod Agrippa, or perhaps at 
an even earlier date, the government of the Church at 
Jerusalem was committed to James the Lord’s brother. 
This remarkable man seems to have resembled the 
Baptist rather than his divine Kinsman. His epistle 
is an echo of the prophetic age, abounding with 
denunciations of wealth and luxury, of greed for gain 
and forgetfulness of God. At the same time it gives 


1. Acts v.4, ovx! udvov col uevev Kal wpabev év rH 7 etovolg Urjprer. 
“Their life towards each other was exhibited in the qualified and 
guarded community of goods which they practised.” Hort, Fudazstéc 
Christianity Lect. II. 


a Acts ¥.°2. 3. Rom. xv. 26. 1 Cor. xvi. 2 3. 11 Cor. ix, 1. 
fi Alea. ¥2. 

5. Acts vi. 7, modus re Sxdos Tar lepéwy YrjKovoy Ty Thora. 

6. Acts xv. 5. 7. Actsiv. 13 v.17. St. James ii. 6, 

8. Acts ii. 46, 47. 

g. Gal. ii. 7. 


32 THE CHURCH AT JERUSALEM.  [cu. m1. 


us many indications of the character of the Church 
of Jerusalem. Most of its members were very poor 
and greatly harassed by the wealthy Sadducees, who 
dragged them before the judges and blasphemed the 
good name by which they were called. Their assemblies 
were styled synagogues.! In cases of illness they sent 
for the elders, who made use of oil to heal the sick.? 
Though the epistle probably belongs to a later date 
than the beginning of the history of the Faith, it no — 
doubt represents the condition of the early Church 
when it was a Jewish community. Hegesippus, the 
ancient Church historian, gives an account of James, 
which, though manifestly apocryphal, enables us to 
conjecture the cause of his being so honoured by his 
countrymen. His words are as follows: “James the 
brother of the Lord succeeded to the government of 
the Church in conjunction with the apostles. He has 
been called the Just by all from the time of our Saviour 
to the present day. . . . He was holy from his 
mother’s womb, and he drank no wine nor strong drink, 
nor did he eat flesh. No razor came upon his head. 
He did not anoint himself with oil, and he did not 
use a bath. He alone was permitted to enter into the 
holy place; . . . and he was in the habit of entering 
alone into the Temple and was frequently found upon 
his knees begging forgiveness for the people, so that 
his knees became hard like those of a camel in 
consequence of his constantly bending them in his 
worship of God and asking forgiveness for the people.’’* 
In the Acts and Epistles, St. James appears as the 
leader of the Jewish party, but nothing is said of his 
asceticism. 


1. St. James ii. 2 (R.V.). 2. St. James v. 14. 

3. On the date of the Epistle of St. James see J. B. Mayor’s com- 
mentary, p. cxxiv. Mr. Mayor places it between A.D. 40 and §0, and 
considers it one of the earliest canonical books; but Dr. Hort, though he 
admits it to be the work of St. James, who according to Josephus (Amz. 
XX. ix. I) was put to death about A.D. 62, considers that it belongs to a 
fater period than A.D. 50. $udatstic Christianity, Lect. Vl. See also 
Mr. St. John Parry’s work on the Epistle of St. James. 

4. Euseb., 2.2. 11. 23. See also zd. v. 24, where St. John is said 
to have worn the wéradov of the priests. For St. James’ epistle and his 
relationship to our Saviour, see Mayor's Commentary. For the early 
growth of Christian asceticism see Burkitt’s Zarly Hastern Christeanity, 
Lect. 4, p. 118 ff. 


CH. III, THE SEVEN. 33 


Papel: * But the Jewish Christians of Jerusalem 
Sr cakes. could never have made the world accept 
the faith of the Apostles. The Church of 
the Hebrew-speaking Jews must have remained an 
isolated community with no attractions for the outside 
world. It was the Hellenistic! element which gave 
Christianity its character of a missionary religion. 
The Greek Jews of the Diaspora carried the Gospel 
to all parts of the world, and being already in partial 
sympathy with the heathen among whom they dwelt, 
were disposed to admit them to the benefits of the 
faith in Christ. This was particularly offensive to the 
less broad-minded Jews of Jerusalem, who, if they were 
ready to tolerate the believers as an eccentric sect, 
were not disposed to allow the idea that the Gentiles 
were capable of equal privileges with the chosen people, 
It was in this way that the first real persecution of the 
Church arose. 

Those of the Hellenistic Jews who 
believed complained that their widows 
were neglected in the daily ministration. The Apostles 
being unwilling to leave off preaching to attend to 
the lower duties of serving tables, appointed seven 
men, whose names shew them to have been Greek- 
speaking Jews, to attend to this business; of these 
the most important were Stephen, Philip, and Nicolaus, 
the latter being not even a Jew by birth but a proselyte 
of Antioch. The teaching of Stephen gave great offence 
to the Jews, and he was accused before the Sanhedrin 
of speaking blasphemous words against Moses and 
against God.? His accusers, wilfully misinterpreting 
his use of our Lord’s words, charged him with saying 
that “Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place (1.e. the 
Temple of Jerusalem) and change the customs which 
Moses commanded us.”’® The most prominent opponent 
seems to have been Saul of Tarsus, then a young man, 


The Seven. 


1. It is well for the student of the New Testament to distinguish 
between "Iovdatos the Jew by nation, "ESpatos the Elebrew by language, 
*EAAnuoriys the Greek-speaking Jew, IcpanAelirys the Jew by religion. 

Zi Aets: vies TI. 

3 <Acts vi. 14; St. John ii. 19, 

| Cc 


34 THE GOSPEL IN SYRIA, (cH. m1 


whose clear logical mind had already to all appearance 
recognised that Christ’s religion and Judaism were 
incompatible. The history of the choice of the deacons 
and the condemnation of Stephen was of two-fold 
importance. The former, as M. Renan has rightly 
pointed out, committed the Church to that which has 
been one of her greatest sources of strength, the care 
of the poor;’ the latter marked the severance between 
the adherents of ancient Mosaism and the followers 
of Jesus. 
bid The death of Stephen was the signal 
frat in ie for a dispersion of the early Christians, 
the Apostles alone feeling bound to 
remain at their post in Jerusalem.? Philip the deacon 
made a convert of a proselyte who held the office of 
chamberlain to Candace, Queen of Ethiopia. He also 
preached with great success in Samaria. Some of the 
brethren took refuge in Damascus,’ where there was 
apparently a Christian church. ‘There were believers 
at Lydda,* and at Joppa.6 A still more important 
centre was formed at Antioch, the capital of Syria, 
consisting almost entirely of Hellenistic Jews. The 
believers were so numerous that they attracted the 
attention of the Gentile inhabitants of that profligate 
city, who first gave them the name of Christians,— 
a name which in later times was assumed by the 
brethren themselves. | 
: It has been shewn in the previous 
Preaching tothe chapter that the Jews had erected an 
almost insuperable barrier between them- 
selves and the world; and St. Peter testifies to the 
rigidity of the separation of Jews from all intercourse 
with the Gentiles when he tells Cornelius and his 
companions, “‘ Ye know that it is unlawful for a man 


1. Renan, Les Apétres. 

2. mdvres Te dueomdpyocay Kara Tas xwpas Tis lovdalas kal Dauapelas, 
wAnv Tov drocré\wy, Acts viii. I. 

3. Where Saul was sent, Acts ix. 2. 

4. Acts ix. 32. 

B. Alb, 36. . 
6. Westcott and Hort (Acts xi. 20) adopt the reading "EA\nnords 


and give weighty reasons for rejecting the reading*E\Ayvas which seems 
at first sight the simplest. 


CH. 11] HEROD AGRIPPA. 35 


that is a Jew to join himself, or come unto one of 
another nation.”? (tpels érictacbe ws abeuitov éoti 
avopi *Lovéaim KoddGcbai 7) mpocépyecGal adrropvag.) 
It needed a vision from on high to induce the Apostle 
to overcome his prejudices by preaching the Gospel 
to the centurion Cornelius, and on his return to Jeru- 
salem the stricter party? called him to account for his 
conduct. The conversion of Cornelius, however, seems 
to have been an isolated case sanctioned by a special 
manifestation of the divine will. The real movement 
in the direction of the Gentiles came from Antioch. 
The Christians in that city seem to have been wealthy 
and charitable. Barnabas, the emissary of the Church 
of Jerusalem to Antioch, had recognised the marvellously 
spiritual power of Saul of Tarsus, whose conversion from 
a persecutor to a zealous Christian had taken place a 
few years before, and had brought him to work among 
the Hellenistic population at Antioch. Saul accom- 
panied him to Jerusalem with alms for the poorer 
brethren in the time of the famine, which happened 
in the reign of Claudius.‘ 
Another persecution at Jerusalem was 
Hele ‘Acripys destined to precede the Hon work of the 
at Jerusalem. conversion of the Gentiles. Herod Agrippa 
was the son of that Aristobulus who had 
been put to death by his father Herod the Great. His 
sister was Herodias the infamous wife of his uncle 
Antipas, the tetrarch of Galilee. He passed an unhappy 
youth, partly living at the court of Antipas, partly in 
wandering about the world to borrow money or evade 
his creditors. At Rome he ingratiated himself with 
Caius, afterwards better known as Emperor by his 
nickname of Caligula, and was thrown into prison by 
the suspicious Tiberius. On Caligula’s accession in 
A.D. 37 he was liberated; Judaea, withthe title of king, 
was added to his dominion by Claudius in A.D. 41, 
when he was proclaimed Emperor. As he had taken 


1. Acts. x. 28. See Dobschiitz, Lzfe im the Primitive Church, 
p. 150, Eng. Transl. : 
' 2. Acts xi. 2, of éx mepiropijs. 
a Acts xi.26. 
4. Acts xi, 28, 29. 
C2 


36 PREACHING TO THE GENTILES  [cH. mL 


part in the protest of the Jews against the erection of 
Caligula’s statue in the Temple,’ he was considered a 
man of piety. As grandson of Mariamne he represented 
the Asmoneans as well as the Herods. One of the 
earliest acts of his reign seems to have been to slay 
ad James the brother of John with the sword 

ey eas and to arrest Peter. He died, like his 
grandfather Herod, of a loathsome disease, which 
attacked him suddenly at Caesarea in the midst of a 
splendid festival.? 
The important decision to preach to 
ine Preaching the Gentiles was made at Antioch under 
St. Barnabas the direct influence of the Holy Ghost.§ 
in cyprus and Barnabas, the leader of the expedition, was — 

sia Minor. , : * 

accompanied by Saul, and by his relative, 
the youthful John Mark, who acted as their minister 
(urnpérns). It is not necessary to follow the Apostles 
on this memorable journey, first to Barnabas’ native 
Cyprus, and afterwards through the southern portions 
of Asia Minor. The conversion of Sergius Paulus, the 
proconsul of Cyprus, shewed clearly that Saul, who is 
henceforth known by his Gentile name of Paul, must 
take the first place in missionary enterprise; and from 
this time the Acts of the Apostles records his individual 
labours. 

Now begins the first of those disputes 
which had such an important effect on the 
history of early Christianity. The Phari- 
sees who believed‘ insisted that the Gentiles should be 
circumcised when they became Christians. They re- 
garded Christ’s religion as a mere extension of Judaism 
and considered that in converting the Gentiles the great 
object was to increase the observers of the Law of Moses, 
What happened is not very easy to determine. According 
to the Epistle to the Galatians, St. Paul went up to 


The Council of 
Jerusalem. 


I. Herod Agrippa I, won great favour from the Jews for the part he 
took in the matter of the mad proposal of Caius to place his statue in the 
Jewish Temple. Gratz in speaking of the reign of this Herod is reminded 
of the days of Josiah. ist. of Jews, vol. 11. Eng. Trans., p. 195. 

2. Acts xii. 20—23. Josephus (Az?zg. XIX. viii. 2) gives an account 
of Herod’s death very similar to that of St. Luke. 

3- Acts xiii. 2. 4 Acts xv. §. 


CH. 111.]} THE COMPROMISE AT JERUSALEM. 37 


Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus with him, and 
set before the Apostles the Gospel which he preached. 
They recognised that he was the Apostle of the Gentiles. 
as Peter was of the Jews, and accordingly James and 
Cephas and John gave to him and Barnabas the right 
hands of fellowship. On the return of Paul and Bar- 
nabas to Antioch they adopted a less strict rule of life 
and ate with the Gentiles... Cephas (for St. Paul calls 
St. Peter by this name) approved of their conduct and 
followed their example, till some of the stricter Jewish 
Christians came from James. Then St. Peter seeing he 
had rendered himself liable to suspicion gradually with- 
drew? from the Gentiles, and even St. Barnabas was 
carried away. St. Paul alone stood firm and rebuked 
Cephas because by this conduct he stood self-condemned® 
by his own previous action in the matter.* According to 
St. Luke a council was held at Jerusalem, at which, 
after a speech by St. Peter, St. Paul and St. Barnabas 
stated what had been done among the Gentiles. St. 
James,in his capacity of president, pronounced a judg- 
ment which was embodied in a letter to the brethren of 
Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia. Gentile converts to Christi- 
anity were not to be forced to observe the Law of Moses, 
but in deference to Jewish prejudices they were to abstain 
from meats offered to idols and from things strangled 
and from blood, they were also to beware of the constant 
moral impurity of heathen life.® 

A more momentous decision could hardly have been 
made. Had the opinion of the Pharisaic Christians 
prevailed, the Christian religion would have been a mere 
Jewish sect. St. Paul, though very tender to Jewish 
prejudices, would never yield the principle of Gentile 
liberty, since on it the whole success of Christianity as 
the religion of the world depended. 


1. Gal. ii. r—143 ver. 12, wera Tv EOvdv ovvijcbev. 
2. Ib., brdoredrer Kal agwprtev Eavrdv, poBovpevos rods éx meptTouys. 
3. Gal. ii. 11, Kareyrwoudvos hy. 

. I am aware that many commentators consider that the visit to 
Jerusalem described in Gal. ii. was not the same as that on the occasion of 
the council recorded in Acts xv. Bp. Lightfoot in his Commentary on the 
Epistle to the Galatians makes out a strong case for the identity. 

5. Acts xv. 14—29. For the explanation of these precepts see Dr 
Hort, Judatstze Christianity. 


38 _ CHRISTIANITY IN EUROPE, (CH. IL 


After visiting the churches which he 
and St. Barnabas had planted in Asia 
Minor, St. Paul, accompanied by Silvanus 
and Timotheus, passed through Phrygia and Galatia, 
and possibly founded a church of believers in the latter 
country.2. The spirit of Jesus? would not suffer them to 
preach in the province of Asia nor in Bithynia nor Mysia, 
anda vision by night of a Macedonian saying “‘ Come over 
into Macedonia and help us,” decided St.Paul to cross over 
into Europe. ‘The object of this journey was to sow the 
seeds of the Gospel in the trading cities, his point being 
Corinth, through which city the trade of East and West 
passed, making it a most important centre for the diffu- 
sion of a new doctrine. Churches were established at 
Philippi and Thessalonica, the one being a Roman 
colony, the other a Greek city of commercial importance. 
The only prominent church founded by St. Paul in the 
East seems to have been that of Ephesus, which was 
destined to play so important a part in early Christian 
history ; he seems to have planted Christianity at a later 
period in Crete.® | 
mig ee The earliest evidence of the Gospel 
Church'at Rome’ Deing preached in Rome is the somewhat 

obscure expression of Suetonius that 
Claudius a.p. 54 expelled the Jews from the city for 
raising incessant tumults about Chrestus, This is con- 
firmed by the presence of Aquila and Priscilla at Corinth 
“because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to 
depart from Rome”.* St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, 
written in A.D. 58, presupposes a large and influential 
church consisting not only of Jews but of Gentiles.’ In 

I. Gal. iv. 13, 14. The question is, Were the Galatians to whom 
St. Paul wrote the Roman inhabitants of the great province of Galatia who 
were evangelised on the first journey, or the Celtic inhabitants of the 
northern portion of that province? Bp. Lightfoot favours the latter view 
and says that St. Paul deflected from the main road on his second journey 
and went to Northern Galatia for the benefit of his health. Professor 


Ramsay in his Church in the Roman Empire supports the South Galatian 
theory. 


2. For an extraordinary explanation of this see Dr. Selwyn, S?. 
Luke the Prophet. 

B.cey LItMs dosh, 4. Acts xviii. 2. 

5. Rom. i. 13, xi. 13; and see Neander, Planting of Christianity, 
vol. I., p. 282. The Ttibingen school consider the Roman Church to have 
been almost entirely composed of Jews. 


Christianity in 
Europe. 


CH. 11] EXTENT OF THE AFOSTOLIC CHURCH. 39 


his Epistle to the Philippians, a.p. 63, he speaks of his 
preaching the Gospel whilst a prisoner in the imperial 
city. 

f It has been the object of the present 
Extent of the chapter to define the extent of the Christian 
Church in the ‘ : : 
Apostolic Age. Church in the apostolic age according to 

the narrative of the New Testament, in 
order to shew how far Christianity had progressed before 
the authentic records of the Apostles ceased. St. Luke 
evidently regards the arrival of St. Paul at Rome as the 
consummation of the work of the Apostles, and closes 
the Acts with this event, as if to shew that when the 
Gospel had reached Rome its world-wide diffusion was 
assured,’ It may be observed that, though the number 
of Christians was doubtless very small, the Church had 
already covered a very wide area and had seized on most 
of the cities which contained a fluctuating population of 
strangers. Thus every pulsation of the current of trade 
in the Roman empire was a means of diffusing Christ’s 
religion throughout the system. The merchant from the 
East, for example, who crossed the Isthmus of Corinth, 
heard of Christ, and carried His name to Gaul and even 
to Britain. The ever shifting population of Jewish 
craftsmen contained unknown missionaries of the Gospel 
who spread it in every city of the empire. The secret 
influence of the kingdom of heaven worked like the 
leaven which the woman took and hid in three measures 
of meal till the whole was leavened.? 
The great centres of evangelization 
Apostolic _ formed by the Apostles were Jerusalem, 
Jerusalem; Antioch, Ephesus, Corinth and Rome, 
Each in its way was typical of a different 
aspect of Christianity. The Church at Jerusalem is a 
reflection of the Church as an historical development of 
Judaism. The Gospel representing it is that of St. 
Matthew, which is ever looking back on the old dis- 
pensation, It was the work of the Hebrew-speaking 
Christians to initiate the movement, and then to be lost 
in the obscure sects of the Judaizing followers of Jesus. 
1. Notice the importance St. Paul attaches to reaching Rome ; de? ye 


xal’’Pdpnv loetv (Acts xix. 21) seems the key-note of his later labours. 
2. Matth, xiii. 33. 


40 APOSTOLICAL CHURCHES. (CH. III. 


The Church of Antioch represented 
Syrian Christianity; its earliest repre- 
sentative was Ignatius, the martyred follower of the 
Apostles. It is a noteworthy fact that Ignatius has 
proved himself in his Epistles a thorough student of 
St. Paul. In spite of the strong Syrian element in the 
city, Greek culture was a characteristic of the Antiochene 
church in later days, and it can boast of the eloquence 
of Chrysostom and of the production of the most popular, 
if most incorrect, revision of the Greek Text of the New 
Testament.! St. Luke, the most educated of the four 
evangelists, is said to have been a native of Antioch. 

The Churches of Asia, with Ephesus 
at their head, represent the mysticism of 
the Phrygians.. Ephesus became the apostolic capital 
after the fallof Jerusalem. It is to the Asiatic Churches 
that St. John addressed his Apocalypse, and from Ephesus 
that the fourth Gospel, with its doctrine of the divine 
Logos, proceeded. St. Paul when writing to Ephesus 
and Colossae, dwells specially on the heavenly hierarchies 
and reproves the tendency to worship the angels. The 
Churches of Asia were connected with those of Gaul by 
Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, the disciple of Polycarp, that 
great link which binds together the Church of history and 
the Church of apostolic tradition. 

The Church of Corinth reflects the 
subtle activity of the Greek mind, It 
is the church of factions and disputes, composed of 
Christians ‘enriched with all utterance and all know- 
ledge,’ but at the same time striving against one another, 
and using the names of their teachers and even of Christ 
as party watchwords.® 

The Church of Rome from the first 
caught the Roman spirit of discipline. 
The Roman Christians, though Greeks rather than 
Romans by language and race, strove from the first to 
legislate for other churches. It is not without significance 
that in a.p. 96 St. Clement writes in the name of the 


Antioch ; 


Ephesus ; 


Corinth; 


Rome. 


1. Westcott and Hort’s Greek Test., vol. II. p. 547. 
2. Col. ii. 18, Oé\wv év tawrevoppocivy Kal Opyckelg TaY dyyéAwy, 
3. Cor. i. II, 12 


CH. 111... CHRISTIANITY BEYOND THE EMPIRE. 4I 


Church of Rome to exhort the Church of Corinth to 
cease from faction and to restore their rightful rulers. 
Although we must not give undue 
yeeuigegee weight to the traditions which represent 
Apostles, the Apostles as having preached in various 
countries, it is not right for an historian 
to ignore them altogether, since they shew at least 
the existence of a widespread belief that the immediate 
followers of our Lord literally obeyed His injunctions, 
and, as far as possible, preached the Gospel to every 
creature, 
A curious legend is related by Eusebius, 
ioey Abgarus who declares he examined and translated 
© uci ‘0 the original documents.! Abgarus wrote 
a letter to our Lord asking Him to leave 
Judaea and preach in his kingdom. Our Lord replied 
by promising that He would, when He had fulfilled 
the things for which He was sent, despatch one of His 
disciples to heal the king, who was sick. Accordingly, 
after the Ascension, Thomas, one of the Twelve, sent 
Thaddeus, one of the Seventy, who healed and converted 
Abgar.? Eusebius says, “this happened in the year 340” 
(of the Seleucidae), a.p. 283—29. ‘The legend is no doubt 
due to the desire of the Christians of Edessa to prove the 
antiquity of their really ancient Church. The first 
Christian king of Edessa was Abgar VIII., a.p. 176—213.5 
eae It was the universal belief of the 
: Church that St. Peter visited Rome. 
Eusebius says he went there to refute Simon Magus 
in the reign of Claudius,* and the martyrdom of St. 
Peter at Rome is repeatedly asserted. Clement of Rome, 
however, who is cited as the earliest authority for this, 
does not say that St. Peter was martyred at Rome. His 
words are: ‘“‘ There was Peter who by reason of unright- 
eous jealousy endured not one nor two but many labours, 


1, Euseb., #. £., 1. 13. 

2. Inthe Edessene document translated by Eusebius from the Syriac 
we read, ‘‘ Judas, who is also called Thomas, sent him Thaddeus, the 
apostle, one of the Seventy.” 

3. Smith and Wace’s Dict. Christian Biography, art. Thaddaeus. 
Burkitt, Zar/y Eastern Christianity, p. 12. The Abgar of the Legend is 
Abgar Ukkama or ‘the Black’. See the Doctrine of Addai, 

4. Euseb., 4.2Z., 1. 14 


I 
; 


42 LABOURS OF THE APOSTLES. (CH. III. 


and thus having borne his testimony went to the ap- 
pointed place of his glory.” It is true that St. Clement 
is writing from Rome and that he goes on to mention 
St. Paul’s martyrdom, but he does not expressly state 
that St. Paul was martyred at Rome. 

Of the Apostle St. John it may be truly 
said that he forms the link between the 
apostolic and sub-apostolic ages. He settled at Ephesus, 
and appears to have organized the Asiatic churches on 
a pattern somewhat dissimilar from that of either the 
Pauline or Hebrew churches.2 ‘The episcopate seems 
to have assumed its present form, in proconsular Asia, 
in St. John’s time, and Tertullian, speaking of that 
province, asserts in his treatise against Marcion, “The 
sequence of bishops traced back to its origin will be 
found to rest on the authority of John.”® Clement of 
Alexandria relates the story of St. John and the 
robber chief. He tells us how the Apostle followed 
his convert, who had become a bandit, and converted 
him again St. Jerome in his commentary on the 
Galatians gives the well-known words of St. John, 
in extreme old age, “My children, love one another,” 
and the answer to the enquiry why he so often repeated 
them, ‘‘ That if this one thing were attained it would be 
enough.” 


St. John. 


Of the other Apostles it is sufficient 

“A ene: to remark that to St. Matthew has been 

Maree Thomas, assigned the honour of first preaching in 

Ethiopia; to St. Bartholomew, in Asia 

and Arabia. The Persian Church claimed St. Thomas, 

and St. Andrew has the credit of having laboured in 

Scythia. It is a remarkable fact that the evangelist 

of the province of Africa is not known, and that St. 

Mark is the only apostolic man connected with the 
important Church of Alexandria. } 


£>. to Cor., ch. 5, Lightfoot’s Transl. 

Neander, Planting of Christianity, vol. I.) Pp. 389 
Lightfoot, Philippians, p. 212. 

" Euseb. Wy 2 #., Ul. 23. 


Whe 
. @ 


CHAPTER IV. 


THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH AND THE ROMAN 
GOVERNMENT. 


Tue Christian society grew silently, unnoticed at 
first by the rulers of mankind. Of the emperors, 
statesmen, lawyers, and men of letters who influenced 
public affairs after the coming of Jesus Christ, hardly 
one so much as recognised the existence of a body of 
men whose views were destined to work the greatest 
revolution in human life and thought that the world 
has ever known. ‘Tacitus, who was a boy when St. Paul 
was a prisoner at Rome and who wrote his Annals 
during the reign of Trajan, does not trouble to enquire 
whether those whom “the vulgar call Christians”’ were 
criminals or not.1_ Suetonius dismisses the subject with 
a few words of disparagement,? and Dio Cassius who 
wrote at a much later date evidently deems it below the 
dignity of history.® 

In spite, however, of the lofty in- 

oka [let difference of the pagan historians, the 
Wreeeess. influence of the Church made itself felt 

| at a very early period in the very palace 

of the Caesars. Nothing is more striking in the history 
of the early Christian Church in Rome than the strong 


1. Tac., Aun. xv. 44. ‘‘ Quos per flagitia invisos vulgus Christianos 
appellabat.” . 
2. Suet., Mero 16. ‘‘Superstitio nova et malefica.” 
For the contempt for Christianity of the heathen writers of the 
first and second centuries see Gibbon, Decline and Fall, ch. xv. 


44 ROMAN IDEA OF RELIGION, (CH. IV. 


support it received from the familia of the Emperors. 
“They of Caesar’s household” are the only Roman 
Christians who salute the Philippian church! in St. 
Paul’s epistle. St. Clement of Rome was probably a 
dependent of the Flavian family,? one of whom, Flavius 
AD. 95. Clemens, suffered, possibly as a Christian,® 
under the tyrant Domitian. Even in the 
time of Diocletian, a.p. 303, the imperial palace was a 
stronghold of Christianity, and that emperor commenced 
his persecution by compelling his wife and daughter to 
defile* their baptismal robes by sacrificing to the gods. 
DSH The presence of Christians in the 
persecution of the palace of the Emperors is a proof that 
aspen Dene the Roman government was naturally 
overnmen* disposed to extend a certain amount of 
toleration to the Church, for by the behaviour of the 
Christian slaves and dependents on festivals and similar 
occasions it must have been evident that they professed 
the Faith; nor need this toleration cause wonder if we 
consider how many religious rights must have been 
practised in the vast concourse of men of all nationalities 
which composed the household of a Caesar. Indeed 
anyone unacquainted with the precise attitude of the 
Roman magistracy towards religion may marvel at the 
undoubted severity with which the Christians were from 
time to time treated. To understand the persecutions 
of the primitive Church it is necessary to divest the 
mind of all modern ideas of religion. To us, religion 
appears to be the highest duty of every man, and his 
relation to God a matter of primary importance. To 
a Roman legislator it was quite otherwise. The first 
duty of a man was to the State, and religious duties 
were subordinated to civil obligations. Hence persecution 
in modern days has had for its avowed object the 
bringing of a misguided individual into a proper 
relationship with his God, whilst that of the Roman 
1:° Phi, 22. . 
2. Lightfoot, Clement of Rome, Appendix, p. 259. Ph2lippzans, p. 20. 
3. He was accused of Judaism and atheism. Flavia Domitilla, 
his wife, was banished for the same offence. Suetonius, Dosuzt. ch. 183 
Dio Cassius, Ixvii. 14. 
Lact., Mort. Per. 15, ‘‘sacrificio pollui coegit.” This implies that 
these ladies were baptized, or at the least, catechumens. 


CH. IvV.]} RELIGIONS RECOGNISED BY LAW. 45 


government aimed at compelling him to return to 
his duty to the Republic. This helps to account 
alike for the absence of bigotry and for the severity 
which characterised the Roman officials in their dealings 
with the Christians. 

The State, in fact, claimed the right to decide what 
gods might be worshipped, and although it did not 
trouble itself about a man’s private opinions, it prescribed 
the objects of public adoration, and from time to time 
insisted on due reverence being paid to them. Cicero 
lays it down as a legal maxim that no one ought to 
have gods apart from the State, and that new and 
foreign gods should not be worshipped unless they had 
been publicly acknowledged.! Till therefore the religion 
of the Christians had received legal recognition, it was 
not lawful to practise it, and those who did so became 
liable to pains and penalties: according to Tertullian, 
the heathen taunted the Christians with the words ‘ non 
licet esse vos, —the law does not allow of your existence. 
But it may be asked why the Christian Church did not 
seek to obtain legal recognition. The Jews had done 
so, and the Christian apologists demanded no more than 
toleration from the State. The obstacle lay in the 
Roman idea that religion was a matter of race rather 
than of conviction. ‘ The Jews” says Celsus “are not 
to be blamed, because each man ought to live according 
to the custom of his country; but the Christians have 
forsaken their national rites* for the doctrine of Christ.” 

A religion that was thus outside the law was sure 
to be exposed to the attacks of both private malice and 
popular frenzy. Wealthy members of the Church were 
especially liable to be accused by the delators or spies, 
employed by the suspicious policy of the Emperors, and, 
as Trajan hints in his reply to Pliny’s letter about the 
Christians, the charge might easily be made anonymously.® 
A Christian before the Edict of Milan was in a position 
somewhat resembling that of a Popish recusant in 


1, ‘* Nisi publice adscitos.” Cicero, Leg. 11. 8. 
2. “Sra mdrpia Karadirdvras Kal ovx &v Te Tuvyxdvovres EOvos ws of 
Tovdato.” Origen c. Celsum v.25. Quoted by Neander, vol. I., p. 123, 


Eng. Transl. 
3. ‘*Sine auctore libelli.” (C. Plinii et Trajani Zpistu/ae, 97. 


46 DANGER IN PROFESSING CHRISTIANITY, [cu. Iv. 


England in the 18th century, liable to laws which might 
at any moment be put in force against him. The 
early Church moreover had in the Jews ever watchful 
enemies, ready at all times to set the law in motion 
against her children? The unreasoning populace was 
easily excited, especially in times of public calamities, 
which were ascribed to the ‘atheism’ of the Christians. 
Tertullian in a well-known passage says that any 
affliction caused the mob to raise the cry “ Christianos 
ad leonem!"’.8 ‘The public burdens imposed by the State 
occasionally exposed the wealthier Christians to per- 
secution. An example of this is found in the Acts of 
the Council of Elvira. If a baptized Christian held 
the office of Flamen he was expected to provide the 
sacrifices and sacred games, and, as this was a function 
hereditary in certain families, the duties could not be 
avoided. The second, third, and fourth canons of the 
Council decide the penalties to be imposed on those 
who from fear of persecution had either paid a sum of 
money, or taken an active part in these idolatrous 
practices. In the latter case all hope of re-entering 
the Christian Church was sternly interdicted.* 
barons forthe We may well ask how it was that 
comparativelytol- the government did not crush the Church 
troktcanGareea. at once,—why if our religion was illegal 
ment towards it was not immediately stamped out by 
Christianity. authority. Origen in his reply to Celsus 
rightly attributes the preservation of the early Church 
1. Professor Ramsay in his Church in the Roman Empire, 1893, draws 
a parallel between the Christians under Nero and the Romanists in England 
during the ‘ Popish Plot’ of 1679. ‘‘ The action of the English law courts 
and people...... in brutality, injustice and unreasoning cruelty, furnishes 
a fit parallel to the Neronian trials.” Both in Rome and England this 
cruelty of the government occasioned a revulsion of feeling. 
2. The Jews were especially active in the martyrdom of St. Polycarp. 
Renan (L’Antichriste) suggests that Nero was induced to select the 
Christians as victims by the intrigues of the Jewish courtiers about his 


person. See also Farrar, Harly Days of Christianity, ch. iv. Clement 
Ee Rome says that the Christians suffered through jealousy. Ep. to Cor. 
ch. 5. | 
3. Apol. 40. ‘*Si Tiberis ascendit in moenia, si Nilus non ascendit in 

arva, si coelum stetit, si terra movit, si fames, si lues, statim Christianos ad 
leonem.” 

_ 4 Hefele, History of the Councils, vol. 1. p. 138, English Translation. 
Bingham, du. Christzan Church, xvi. 6. 4. 


CH. Iv. ] REASON FOR TOLERATION, 47 


to the providence of God, and remarks that but a few 
at wide intervals had suffered for the Faith. But 
though Christians naturally recognise God’s special 
providence in the protection of His Church, we may 
also be permitted to examine what purely natural 
causes contributed to secure this comparative immunity. 
It is seldom that a society which, though illegal, does 
not disturb the tranquillity of the State, or interfere with 
the collection of the revenue, is subject to continuous 
molestation. Occasionally, over-conscientious magis- 
trates may put the laws in force, but wise or negligent 
rulers are content to leave them in abeyance or even 
to allow them to be evaded. Nor was a military 
despotism like that of the Roman empire likely to 
enquire very deeply into actions, on which no possible 
suspicion of treason could rest. No doubt the Christian 
Church was regarded, by superficial observers lke (in 
this instance) Tacitus, as an immoral society: but 
most of the emperors had to consider primarily how 
to keep the army in good humour, and had little time 
to regulate the religion or morality of their subjects. 
Nor should it be forgotten that many Christians be- 
longed to a class which no wise government is willing 
to annoy. The taunt of Celsus and other opponents. 
of the Faith was that it was a religion of women and 
slaves, but nevertheless it seems to have taken a strong 
hold on the commercial classes, and on professional 
men,—in a word, on the chief taxpayers of the State.” 
Added to this there was the extreme disorganization 
of the Roman empire from the death of Marcus Aurelius, 
A.D. 180, to the accession of Diocletian, a.p. 283. As 
during this period there were no less than twenty-four 
changes of government, and thirty-five emperors, no. 
settled policy towards the Church was possible or 
even conceivable. 


I. Origen, ¢. Celsum, 111. 8. ddlyou kar& Katpods Kal ofddpa evapid- 
pyro vrep THs Xpioriavav OeoceBelas TeOvijkaccy. 
2. See Milman, Lat. Christianity, p. 209, note; Tertullian, 4fo/. 37; 


and Conybeare’s Bampton Lectures, 345: ‘‘It seems unquestionable that 
the strength of Christianity lay in the middle, perhaps in the mercantile 
classes.” ‘Tertullian is a good example of the professional men who 


embraced our Faith. 


48 TIBERIUS AND CAIUS. (CH. IV. 


a The three great divisions into which 
Bey aun ieee the history of the Empire falls from the 
policytowardsthe accession of Augustus to that of Diocletian, 

Capea. almost coincide with the centuries of our 
era. The first may be said to terminate with the death 
of Domitian, a.pD. 96; the second with that of Commodus, 
A.D. 192: and the third with that of Numerian, A.D. 283. 
In the first of these periods the Church had chiefly to 
dread the personal fears or jealousy of a tyrant; in the 
second, the operation of laws, generally put into force 
by the mistaken policy of good rulers; whilst during 
the last, the Christians were alternately ignored, caressed — 
or persecuted, according to the caprice of the successful 
soldier who for the time held the empire. 

aa According to Tertullian, Tiberius con- 

Reng rie: sulted the Senate on the propriety of 

admitting Christ into the Pantheon of 

Roman divinities. The Senate rejected the Emperor’s 

proposal. But Caesar remained unaltered in his view 

of the case and threatened the accusers of the Christians 
with penalties.? 

Passing over the reigns of Caius, in which the Jews 
resisted the Emperor’s blasphemous attempt to erect a 
statue of himself in their Temple, and of Claudius, 
whose edict, as Suetonius tells us, drove the Jews from 
Rome? for their tumults about the Christ,? we come to 
definite facts in connexion with the Christian Church in > 
the time of Nero. 


1. Tertullian, 4fof, 5. * Tiberius ergo, cujus tempore nomen Chris- 
tianum in saeculum introivit, annuntiatum sibi ex Syria Palaestina, quod 
illic veritatem illius divinitatis revelaverat, detulit ad senatum cum praeroga- 
tiva suffragii sui, Senatus, quia non ipse probaverat, respuit ; Caesar in 
sententia mansit, comminatus periculum accusatoribus Christianorum.” In 
ch. 21, he says :—‘* Ea omnia super Christo Pilatus, et ipse jam pro sua 
conscientia Christianus, Caesari tunc Tiberio nuntiavit.”’ Justin Martyr twice 
speaks in his Apology of the records of what was done under Pontius 
Pilate. (Apol. 45, 63.) [Stanton, Zhe Gospels as Historical Documents, 
part 1.) He says nothing of these records being sent to Tiberius, 
Eusebius (11. 2) merely translates Tertullian. Bishop Kaye (Zertud/ian, 
p. 110) discusses the fact mentioned by Tertullian. 

2. Acts xviii. 2. 

3. Suet., Claud. 25. ‘Judaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantes 
Roma expulit.” Thisisa very vague statement and may be due to Suetonius 
confusing what he had heard about Christ in his day with what happened 
in the time of Claudius. 


CH. 1v.} LEGEND OF ST. PAUL AND THECLA. 49 


We possess an account of a proceeding 
yan against Christians, which is perhaps the 
Thecla. earliest on record, in the very strange 

romance of St. Paul and Thecla. The 
latter was a noble maiden of Iconium who was con- 
verted by hearing the Apostle in his second missionary 
tour preach as she sat at a window of her mother’s house. 
The conversion of Thecla caused the imprisonment of 
St. Paul, who was visited by Thecla in his dungeon, 
the damsel having bribed the jailor with her ornaments 
and silver mirror. Paul was beaten and driven from 
the city; and Thecla after various adventures appears 
at Antioch, where Alexander the high priest of Syria 
offered her insulting proofs of admiration, though she 
told him she was a stranger, who had vowed chastity 
to God. Thecla finding her protests futile attacked 
Alexander and tore the crown from him. For this 
she was arrested and condemned to die as guilty of 
sacrilege. A queen named Tryphaena received Thecla 
into her house after her condemnation on promising 
to produce her that she might undergo her sentence. 
Thecla was brought into the amphitheatre with no 
garment save the cincture’ which the Roman law 
allowed condemned criminals. The people, especially 
the women, we are told, greatly sympathised with her. 
The accusation over Thecla’s head was the word 
SACRILEGA, and she stood with her arms extended in 
the form of a cross. A series of miracles rescued 
Thecla on this occasion from death. Absurd as parts 
of the story are, the Acts of Paul and Thecla contain 
some undoubted traces of genuine antiquity. Queen 
Tryphaena is a personage who was well known in 
Asia Minor in the first century. Thecla’s condemnation— 
not for Christianity but for sacrilege—together with 
the fact that the people sympathised with her in her 
punishment, is an evidence of an early date, and a 
very convincing argument for the antiquity of the 
story is the fact that Thecla was able by the use of 
her needle (payraca) to change the appearance of her 
dress when she wished to pass as a boy. This could 


D 


50 THE NERONIAN PERSECUTION, (CH. EV. 


more easily have been done in the first century of 
our era than later.’ 

Nero. The Neronian persecution, during which 

A.D. 54-68. probably both St. Peter and St. Paul 
suffered martyrdom, furnishes a good illustration of the 
general policy of the Government towards the Church, 
which had been allowed to grow in obscurity, and was 
only attacked by the Emperor when it was convenient 
for him to attract public indignation away from himself. 
It is possible that the trial of St. Paul may have called 
Nero’s attention to the fact of the existence of the 
Christians in Rome. The vast multitude who suffered? 
is a heathen testimony both to the rapid increase of the 
Church, and to the severity of the persecution. Nero 
lent his gardens for the purpose of exhibiting the 
tortures of the wretched victims, and at night he il- 
luminated his grounds by the flames of the burning 
Christians. The cruelty of these tortures and the 
flagrant injustice with which the Christians were treated 
caused, we may infer, a reaction in their favour, and 
the fact that many of them had been Nero’s victims 
may have saved them from molestation after the tyrant’s 
death. 

The reign of Nero is the most important crisis in 
the history of the Church in the first century, and it 
is also the key to many difficulties in the New Testa- 
ment. There can be no stronger contrast than the 
language employed by St. Peter and St. Paul on the 
subject of the duty of Christians to obey the Roman 
Government and the abhorrence with which St. John 
in the Revelation speaks of the Empire.t This is only 
to be accounted for by the fact that a terrible outbreak 
of persecution had intervened between the last of the 


1. Ramsay’s chapter (xv1.) on the Acts of Paul and Thecla, in his 
Church and the Roman Empire. Le Blant, Actes et Martyres. Lipsius has 
published an edition of the text. 

2. Tacitus, dun. xv. 44. I cannot but believe that the discovery of 
a ‘secret society’ like the Christians must have been a godsend to the 
government at this time. The Italians have a genius for secret combina- 
tion : witness the power of the Cardonarz and the Aafia in recent times. 

3. Tacitus, Amn. Xv. 44. ‘‘ Aut flammandi, atque ubi defecisset dies 
in usum nocturni luminis urerentur.” 

4. Rev. xvii. 9 foll. 


CH. Iv.] ABHORRENCE OF IDOLATRY. 51 


Pauline Epistles and the Apocalypse. St. Paul at least 
had no cause to feel any bitterness against the Roman 
rule—Caesar was to him the supreme embodiment of 
justice on earth, to whom he was able to appeal when 
no other judge had the courage to protect him.! It is 
conceivable that St. John had actually witnessed the 
persecution of the Christians at Rome, and had perhaps 
himself been in great danger.? In this case it is not 
unnatural that the Apostle of the Gentiles should speak 
of the Roman Empire as the restraining influence in 
the world,® and that St. John should rejoice at the 
prospect of the fall of the Babylon of his day the 
abominable city of Rome which was drunk with the 
blood of the saints.* From Nero’s persecution also dates 
the almost fanatical hatred with which the Christians 
regarded idolatry. In St. Paul’s First Epistle to the 
Corinthians a singular absence of invectives against 
worshipping idols is noticeable, especially as the Epistle 
treats at some length of the question of eating meats 
offered to idols. Before, however, the Canon of the 
New Testament had closed, this contemptuous silence on 
the subject of images gave way to a furious and more 
than Jewish hatred of idolatry,*° and it became a point of 
honour among Christians to embrace the opportunity of 
martyrdom sooner than risk the least contamination 
from the worship of heathen gods. This seems properly 
attributable to the effect of the Neronian persecution. 
nt The reign of Vespasian was unsullied 
apomitian_ by any public persecution, as this ruthless 
conqueror of the Jews left the Christians 

in tranquillity.’ Suetonius says that Vespasian never 
took pleasure in anyone’s death, and used to be moved 
to tears even when criminals were deservedly executed. 
It has been supposed that this refers to the sufferings of 
people like the Christians, whose punishment Vespasian 


ft, ACE xxv. 10, UI: 

2. The story of St. J hase being plunged into boiling oil is in Ter- 
tullian, Praescrip. ch. 36. 

Beweit) lL hess. ii, 6: 4. Rev. xvii. 6. 

5. I Cor, viii. passim. 

6. Rev. ii. 20. 

y- Tert. Apol. 5. ‘‘Judaeorum debellator.” 


52 FLAVIUS CLEMENS, | (CH. Iv. 


felt bound to accept, while he regretted it.1 The rigid 
enforcement of the tax called the fiscus Judaicus on all 
Jews by this emperor may however have revealed how 
numerous the Christians were, and have resulted in 
several executions. The abominable regime of informers 
which flourished under the patronage of Domitian was 
felt by the Church. A charge of ‘atheism’ might easily 
be magnified into one of treason, and the greed and 
suspicion of the Emperor combined to strengthen his 
determination to visit those accused of Christianity with 
the penalty of death.? If, as is not improbable, St. 
Clement’s first epistle was written during the reign of 
this emperor, the persecutions endured by the Christians 
at the time are described as sudden and repeated.? Bp. 
Lightfoot in his note on this passage remarks that “* Domi- 
tian made use of legal forms and arraigned the Christians 
from time to time on various paltry charges.” 

The most important victim to the suspicious jealousy 
of Domitian was Flavius Clemens, the Emperor’s cousin- 
german and his colleague in the consulship, who was 
suddenly accused of atheism and Jewish superstition. 
His wife Flavia Domitilla was banished to an island.* 


1. Ramsay, p. 257. I am afraid I cannot read this meaning into 
Suetonius’ words. The chapter (Xv.) in which they occur begins with the 
history of Vespasian’s treatment of Helvidius Priscus, who had behaved to 
the Emperor with the utmost discourtesy. Vespasian condemned him, but 
changed his mind and countermanded the order when too late, The 
historian concludes with the remark that the Emperor was greatly moved ~ 
(inlacrimavit atque ingemuit) even when men were justly executed, Pro- 
fessor Ramsay says “‘ it is inconceivable that Vespasian, a Roman, a soldier 
ef long experience in the bloody wars of Britain and Judaea, ‘ wept’ and 
groaned at every ‘ merited’ execution.” It is possible however that as a 
general Vespasian may have regarded the massacre of Celtic barbarians and 
Jewish fanatics in war time with callous indifference, and yet have shewn 
extreme sensitiveness at the sight of the execution of criminals in time of 

eace. 
F 2. See Neander, Hist. Church, vol. 1. p. 132. 

3. Lp. to Corinthians, ch. i. 6:4 Tas ai@udtous kai émaddAnAous ‘yevo- 
pévas Nutv cuugopds. Yet we hear no complaints of apostasy. Dobschiitz, 
Christian Life in the Primitive Church. Domitian posed as a strict reformer 
of religion. Dill, Roman Society from Nero to Marcus Aurelius, p. 54. 

4. Eusebius (4. 2. 111. 18) calls her his niece, and Bp. Lightfoot 
(PAzlippians, p.22sq.) concludes that there were two ladies of this name who 
suffered for their Christianity. Dion Cassius (lxvii. 44) says :—émrnvéxOn 52 
duoty éyxAnua abedrnros Up Fs Kal dda els ra Tay lovdalwy 20n eFoxéd- 
Aovres toddol KaredixdoOnoav Kal of wéev arébavoy ol 5& Ta¥ your otciav 
éorep7Onoay. Prof. Ramsay gives some valuable suggestions as to Dion 


CH. Iv.] THE DESPOSYNI. 53 


There is a story related by Hegesippus which though it 
has decidedly fabulous air! shews the watchfully sus- 
picious nature of the tyrant. Hearing that some of 
David’s descendants were alive in the persons of the 
grandsons of Jude the Lord’s brother, Domitian ordered 
them to be brought to Rome and questioned them as to 
their lineage. ‘lhey said that though really descendants 
of David, they were poor farmers working on a small 
property they owned in Palestine. In proof of this 
statement they showed their hands hardened with toil, 
and the Emperor dismissed them with contempt, As 
they asserted that the kingdom of Christ was spiritual 
and not temporal, the Emperor ordered the persecution 
of the Christians to cease.? i 
Rat ae After the death of Domitian the empire 
dete ned fell into the hands of a succession of good 
Roman and able rulers. With the exception of 
Emperors.  Nerva they each reigned for some years, 
and their administrations secured a period of prosperity, 
marked by the very rapid growth and progress of the 
Christian Church. It was inevitable that the Church 
and the Empire should now from time to time come into 
conflict with one another, and we must attribute to the 
watchful providence of God the fact that this most 
critical period of the Church’s existence coincided with 
the wise and moderate administrations of four successive 
emperors. Hitherto the law had been strained to per- 
secute the Christians at the caprice of the worst rulers, 
but henceforth all irregular attacks on the Church were 
checked by the prudence of emperors, who in their 
mistaken zeal for justice resolved to substitute for 
popular violence the regular process of the laws, and 
to specify the profession of Christianity as unlawful.® 


Cassius’s reasons for saying that they suffered for Judaism. Either he 
gives the charge that was brought at the time, or he in conformity with the 
fashion of his age ignores Christianity. Op. c7z¢. p. 263. For the heroism 
displayed by women in the darkest days of Caesarian despotism, see Dill, 
Roman Society from Nero to Marcus Aurelius, p..47. 

1. Milman, Aistory of Christianity, vol. I1., p. 10. 

2. Hegesippus, quoted in Euseb., &. &. 111. 20. Tertullian (Afo/. 5) 
confirms the statement that Domitian stopped a persecution. The brethren 
of our Lord were called the Desposyntz. 

3. It is a disputed question whether the reply of Trajan to Pliny 
inaugurated a system of persecution by law or modified the rigour of the 


54 WAS TRAJAN A PERSECUTOR? [CH. IV, 


Rao It is difficult to decide from the testi- 
AD. $8117, mony of the Fathers whether Trajan was 
the friend or foe of the Christian Church. 
As a rule they are favourable in their view of his reign. 
Even Tertullian,} who severely criticises his rescript in 
answer to Pliny’s famous letter, alludes to the laws 
against the Christians quas Trajanus ex parte frustratus 
est. Melito of Sardis,? an earlier Apologist, in his 
address to Marcus Aurelius evidently includes Trajan 
among the good emperors who protected the Church. 
“Thy pious fathers” he tells the Emperor “ often set 
right the ignorance (of the adversaries of the Christians), 
blaming those who dared to devise any new evil against 
us often in repeated rescripts. Among whom? thy grand- 
father Hadrian with many others also appears, writing 
to Fundanus the proconsul ruling in Asia.” Eusebius 
says that the prosecutions during this period were rare 
and widely distributed,t and in later times Trajan is 
supposed to have been allowed to enter heaven owing to 
the prayer of Pope St. Gregory the Great.® It is notice- 
able however that the Apologists always asserted that 
the good emperors favoured the Christians and that 
those who persecuted them were bad men who generally 
came to bad ends. The facts are rather against Trajan, 
as during his reign Pliny wrote his well-known letter to 
the Emperor, and Ignatius was martyred. 
iste The younger Pliny, proconsul of 
pie area ‘© Bithynia a.p. 110, finding that the Christ- 
ians were very numerous in this province, 
wrote a letter to the Emperor asking his advice as to the 


former procedure. Prof. Ramsay says ‘‘ The real importance of the letter 
to Pliny is very different. It marks the end of the old system of uncom- 
promising hostility.” 


1. Apology, 5. . 

2. Apud Euseb., Hest. Eccl, tv. 26. 

3. év ols must include Trajan. See Lightfoot’s Afostolie Fathers, 
vol. I. 

4. Hist. Eccl. Wl. 32. pepexws kal cara wodes. 

5. This legend is very fully discussed by Bp. Lightfoot, Apostolic 


Fathers, part 11. vol. 1. p. 6. It was a favourite story in the middle ages, 
and is alluded to by Dante, Paradiso xx. 44 sq., 106 sq. St. Thomas 
Aquinas ingeniously attempts to solve the question of how an unbaptized 
heathen could have been saved. Baronius (sub anno 604) refutes the story, 


CH.IVv.] PLINY ASKS TRAJAN’S ADVICE. S5 


method of dealing with an illegal association like the 
Church ;/ the chief points of which are as follows :— 
Pliny says that according to his custom he refers 
any difficulty he has to Trajan and desires his advice. 
As he had had no previous experience of the judicial 
enquiries about the Christians he does not know how he 
should proceed. Up to the present time he examined 
some who had been brought before him whether they 
were Christians, on their confession he threatened them, 
and if they persisted he condemned them to death. For 
as he remarks with true Roman contempt, ‘ pertinacity 
and inflexible obstinacy ought at any rate to be punished.’ 
A few who were Roman citizens and had fallen into 
this madness® Pliny sent to Rome. An anonymous 
information had been laid containing the names of many 
supposed Christians. Pliny summoned these and made 
them offer sacrifice and curse Christ, which he remarks 
real Christians can never be forced to do. A few said 
that they had been Christians, but had left the Church 
some as long ago as twenty years; they also declared 
that the Christians were accustomed to meet on a 
particular day before dawn and to sing an antiphonal 
hymn to Christ as though to a god.® They also, says 
Pliny, bound themselves by an oath (sacramento) to 
abstain from crime and to behave honestly. By this 
the baptismal oath is evidently meant, which Pliny, not 
unnaturally, misunderstood, considering that it was 
administered not once but frequently to the same 
persons. After this the assembly broke up and did not 
meet again till the evening, when they partook of a 
common meal, apparently the Christian ayamrn. This 
however they at once consented to abandon in obedience 


1. LPlinti et Trajant Epistulae 96,97. For these letters with notes 
see Lightfoot, of. c#t.. vol. 1., p. 50. 

2. Pliny was praetor A.D. 93 or 94. He knew that Christians had 
been previously tried, though he himself never assisted at such a trial. 

3. Plinit et Trajant Eptstulae. 96, 4: ‘‘ similis amentiae.” 

4. 1/6. 5: *‘Propositus est libellus sine auctore, multorum nomina 
continens.” 

Jb. 7: ‘*carmenque Christo, quasi deo, dicere secum invicem.” 

6. The Christian baptismal vow of renunciation seems to have been 
taken from the Commandments: ‘‘ne furta, ne latrocinia, ne adulteria 
committerent, ne fidem fallerent” &c. 6. 7. 


56 SUPERSTITIO ‘PRAVA ET IMMODICA’. (cH. Iv. 


to the imperial edict about clubs.* Being determined 
to ascertain the whole truth, Pliny tortured two female 
slaves, termed by the Christians ministvae or deaconesses, 
but found that the religion was nothing worse than a 
base and degrading superstition. He admits, however, 
that a vast number of people were in danger of being 
accused of Christianity, and that the temples had been 
almost abandoned, a sure sign that the new religion had 
the effect of creating scepticism as to the efficacy of the 
heathen rites.2, Nevertheless he had caused many to return 
to the worship of the gods by his salutary severity, 
and is of opinion that giving opportunities for expressing 
regret at having been Christians is both a wise and 
merciful policy. 

The great importance of this letter justifies a full 
abstract of its contents, although in the present instance 
we are only concerned with the attitude of the Roman 
government towards the Christians. The most notice- 
able feature it presents is the total absence of intolerant 
fanaticism. Although the new superstition seems in 
Pliny’s eyes to be “ prava et immodica®”’ he has no desire 
to proceed with unnecessary severity. Equally con- 
spicuous is the fact that it was illegal to profess 
Christianity, even though no special edict had been 
issued against it, and that once the Christians ceased 
to be identified with a body like the Synagogue, which 
was recognised by law, they became liable to prosecution. 
Most creditable is it to Pliny’s sense of justice that he 
refused to accept the popular charges of abominable 
practices, even in the case of an unlawful association, 
without full investigation by all means that lay within 
his power. Lastly it may be observed that the silence of 
the Christian writers on the subject of a persecution so 


1. The abandonment of the dydan shews that it could not have been 
the Eucharist: cf. the remark of the martyr Felix; ‘‘As if a Christian could 
live without the Lord’s ordinance ! knowest thou not, Satan, that a Chris- 
tian’s whole being is in the sacrament?” Mason, Persecution of Diocletian, 


p- 151. 
2. Plinii et Trajani Epistulae, 96, 9: ‘* contagio.” 
3. Professor Ramsay explains these words: ‘‘It was a suferstitio 


(in other words a non-Roman worship of non-Roman Gods), in the first 
place a degrading system (frava) and in the second destructive of that 
reasonable course of life which becomes the loyal citizen (z#zmodica).” 


CH. IV. TRAJAN ANSWERS PLINY. 57 


evidently severe as that in Bithynia, is in itself a 
refutation of the malignant assertion that in speaking of 
their persecutions the Christians forgot nothing and 
magnified everything.} 

The answer that Trajan _ returned 
to Pliny’s letter shews the statesmanlike 
moderation of that emperor. His policy was to put 
down all clubs and associations, as he considered that 
they might easily become centres of political disaffection.? 
The description Pliny had given him of the Christian 
society was sufficient to convince him that it bore some 
resemblance to a hetaivia or club, and this was enough 
to prejudice it in his eyes. As however the members of 
the Church appeared to Pliny to be mere harmless 
fanatics, though belonging to an illegal society, the 
Emperor had no desire to treat them with undue 
severity. In spite of the satirical comment of Tertullian,® 
Trajan shewed a desire to act as mercifully as possible, 
consistently with his policy of suppressing all secret 
societies in the empire. In his reply to Pliny he 
approved his action in the matter of the Christians, 
forbade that they should be sought for, but if they were 
accused and found guilty they were to be punished, if 
they denied that they were Christians they were to prove 
the fact by supplicating the gods. As for the anonymous 
accusations alluded to by Pliny, they were to be treated 
with the contempt they deserve; for says Trajan nobly, 
‘they are the worst possible precedent and unworthy 
of our age.’¢ 


Trajan’s reply. 


The martyrdom of Ignatius with its 
attendant circumstances is involved in 
obscurity. We are entirely ignorant of 


Martyrdom of 
Ignatius. 


1. See Lightfoot, Azostolic Fathers, Part 11., vol. i., p. 16. 

2. See the letters of Pliny and Trajan quoted by Bp. Lightfoot, of. 
cit., p. 19. Trajan will not even permit a guild of fire-men. 

3. Tert. Apfo/. 2. ‘‘ Osententiam necessitate confusam ! Negat inqui- 
rendos ut innocentes et mandat puniendos ut nocentes.”’ 

4. Plinit et Trajani Epistulae, 97. ‘*‘ Nam et pessimi exempli nec 
nostri saeculi est.” Prof. Ramsay denies that Trajan regarded the Christian 
Church asan unlawful guild. The Christians gave up the evening meal which 
made them a soda/ztas. ‘* The fact is one of the utmost consequence. It shews 
that the Christian communities were quite alive to the necessity of acting 
according to law and of using the forms of law to screen themselves as 
far as was consistent with their principles.” p. 219—220. 


58 IGNATIUS AND THE EMPIRE. (CH. IV, 


the events which led to his trial and condemnation. 
The light of history only shines on him when he has 
received sentence of death and is on his way to Rome 
to be exposed in the amphitheatre to the wild beasts. 
On his journey he received numerous visits from his 
friends and was allowed to send letters to the different 
churches, and to Polycarp bishop of Smyrna, the disciple 
of St. John; he even was able to despatch a letter to the 
Roman Christians, imploring them ‘not to rob him of 
the glory of martyrdom by their intercessions.! A tone 
of passionate exultation at the prospect of his sufferings 
is audible throughout the letters, in marked contrast to 
the calm utterances of the writers in the New Testament 
when they anticipated the trial of a martyr’s death. 
The Ignatian Letters breathe a spirit of uncompromising 
hostility to the Roman empire, which reminds us of the 
Apocalypse. The world (cooyos) is used in the Johannine 
sense as the human order of affairs which is in irre- 
concileable hostility to the Church. All compromise 
with the powers that be is unworthy of the spirit of 
Christianity. ‘‘The work” says Ignatius to the Romans 
“is not of persuasiveness, but Christianity is a thing of 
might when it is hated by the world.”* Although the 
account of the trial before Trajan exists only in the 
doubtful Acts of the Martyrdom, it is supposed that the 
Emperor was at this time preparing for his invasion of 
the East and that the conduct of the Jews, who revolted 
in the reign of Hadrian, had made him extremely 
suspicious. In spite of Ignatius’ vehement denunciations 
of the Jews, the Emperor may have confused Christianity 
with Judaism, and the martyrdom of Symeon son of 
Cleopas, the second bishop of Jerusalem,* may have been 
due to the same cause.° 


1. The letter to the Romans is interesting as shewing both the 
position of influence which that Church possessed even at that time, and the 
spirit which animated the Christian martyrs. 

2. Ign. Rom. 4. cirds elut Oeod, kal 8’ dddvTwv Onplwy adjPopuat, 
tva KaBapos Apros evpeOS [rod Xpiorod]. pwadrov Kodaxevoare Ta Onpla twa 
po Tados yévwrrat......... Atravedoare Tov Xprordv brép Ewov, tva Oia Tay 
épydvwv tovTwv Oeod Ovola evpedd. 

3. Romans, 3. Ramsay, p. 314. 

4." Museb. Akin. 32. 

5: See Dean Milman’s Hist. of Chréstiantty, vol. I1., p. 101. 


CH. IV.] HADRIAN’S RESCRIPT. 59 


Hadctan Under Hadrian the Christians began 
AD. 117-138, to make themselves known to the heathen 
world by the Apologies which they ad- 
dressed to the Emperor. The revolt of the Jews under 
Barcochab made it necessary for the Christians to remove 
all misapprehensions as to their relations with Judaism. 
Eusebius says that the Jews of Cyrene in the eighteenth 
year of Trajan (a.p. 115) had caused very serious trouble, 
and there had also been disturbances in Alexandria and 
elsewhere which were put down with great severity.} 
It was no doubt partly on this account that Quadratus 
and Aristides addressed their Apologies for the Christian 
faith to Hadrian when he was admitted to the Eleusinian 
mysteries at Athens? in A.p. 133. The Emperor himself 
recognised the injustice of punishing the Christians for 
the sake of gratifying popular caprice, and in reply to 
the representations of Serennius Granianus proconsul of 
Asia on this subject he addressed a rescript 
Bega exencrint to his successor Minucius Fundanus en- 
Fundanus, joining that the Christians should not 
be put to death without a formal accusa- 
tion and a proper hearing of their case. This rescript 
placed the Christians under the protection of the law 
in so far as it exempted them from the danger of popular 
fury, but it also recognised the illegality of their religion, 
which from this time was formally condemned by the 
laws of the empire. 

Under Barcochab (a.p. 132—135) the 
Jewish nation made a last despairing 
effort to throw off the Roman yoke. 
The Christians of Palestine were among the chief 
sufferers in this terrible revolt, as the Jewish in- 
surgents persecuted with all the cruelty of fanaticism 
those who refused to join them in the rebellion. 
On its suppression Jerusalem was made a pagan city 


Rebellion of 
Barcochab. 


1. Euseb., 4.4. Iv, 2. 

2. Enuseb., 2d. Iv. 3. 

3. Euseb., 2d. Iv. 9. The genuineness of this rescript has been 
denied, but the evidence in its favour is very strong; it forms the con- 
clusion of Justin Martyr’s first Apology and it is quoted by Melito. The 
vagueness with which the rescript alludes to the crime of being a Christian 
is the sole cause for suspecting its genuineness. 


60 THE GENTILE CHURCH OF AELIA. [cu. Iv. 


with the name of Aelia Capitolina, and the Jews were 
forbidden to approach it. The Christians having to 
choose between abandoning the city or their Jewish 
rites, decided upon the latter alternative by electing 
a Gentile bishop by name Marcus to occupy the seat 
of St. James and Symeon.? 
It 1s noticeable that a period of severe 
Antoninus Fits trial of a nation or institution is frequently 
ie preceded by one of unusual calm. Under 
the contemptuous indifference of Hadrian and the mild 
administration of Antoninus Pius, the Christians seem 
to have enjoyed a comparatively uneventful period of 
tranquillity. Eusebius quotes a rescript to the assembly 
of Asia, published in the name of M. Aurelius but 
ascribed to Antoninus, ordering the Christians not to 
be punished except for crimes against the State;? but 
as Melito of Sardis does not give the words of this edict 
in the fragment preserved by Eusebius, though he quotes 
one far less favourable to the Church, Neander considers 
that in all probability there was no such rescript.? In 
spite however of the lenity of the Emperor’s policy 
towards the Church, a famous martyrdom 
es RNS of happened in his reign. The venerable 
AD. 150. Polycarp, the last link that bound the 
Church to the Apostolic age, the pupil 
of St. John and the master of Irenaeus, was burned at 
Smyrna. The church at this place, in a letter addressed 
to the church at Philomelium, gave a very full account 
of the persecution they had just endured. The martyrs 
were tortured in a most horrible manner and then given 
to the beasts. One of them, a youth named Germanicus, 
actually encouraged the beasts to attack him, and his 
courage so amazed and angered the multitude that they 
clamoured for Polycarp’s execution. Quintus, a Phrygian 
who had provoked persecution by rushing forward to the 


1. Euseb., #.Z.1v. 6. Neander, Church History, vol. 1., p. 143. 

2. Euseb., 2d. 13. 3. Church History, vol. 1., p. 144. 

4. Eusebius (#.Z. Iv. 15) places the martyrdom in the reign of 
Marcus Aurelius. Bp. Lightfoot considers it took place A.D. 155. Mr. 
C. H. Turner, in an essay in the Studia Biblica e¢ Heclesiastica, vol. 11. 
(Oxon., 1890) prefers A.D. 156. 


Pe ee le ee ee Te Pe i ee 


CH. IY. ] MARTYRDOM OF POLYCARP. 61 


tribunal, was ordered to be thrown to the beasts, but was 
so appalled by them that he renounced Christ. Polycarp 


had decided on the advice of his friends not to remain 


in the city but to retire to a farm belonging to him in 
the country. He allowed himself to be arrested though 
he might easily have escaped, ordered food to be pre- 
pared for the use of the police sent to seize him, and 
requested only an hour for prayer. As he was being 
conducted to the city, Herod the Irenarch and his father 
Nicetes met him and took him into their carriage to 
remonstrate with him for his obstinacy in refusing to 
say ‘Lord Caesar’ and to sacrifice to save his life. 
As however Polycarp persisted in his refusal they thrust 
the old man out of the carriage so violently that his 
shin was injured. He was brought to the stadium where 
the sacred games and shows were being exhibited, and 
asked to swear by the genius of Caesar and to curse 
Christ. His reply is one of the noblest answers ever 
given by a martyr: “Eighty and six years have I 
served Him and He never did me wrong, how then can 
I blaspheme my King who has saved me?”’ He was 
condemned, and a herald made proclamation “ Polycarp 


confesses that he is a Christian!’’ whereupon the whole 


multitude Gentiles and Jews dwelling at Smyrna cried 
out, “This is that teacher of Asia, the father of the 
Christians, the destroyer of our gods; he that teaches 
multitudes not to sacrifice nor to worship.” He was 
condemned to be burned, and the Christians of Smyrna 
believed that the flames would not touch the body of 
the saint. The executioner plunged his sword into the 
body and the great quantity of blood which poured 
forth extinguished the flames.1 The Jews were par- 
ticularly active in promoting the execution, and the 
body was refused to the Christians lest they should 
abandon the worship of Christ for that of their new 
saint. The letter remarks very beautifully, “They did 
not know that we can never abandon Christ who 
suffered for the salvation of those who are being saved 
from all the world, nor even worship any other.” 


I. For the many parallels between the martyrdom of Polycarp and 
the Passion of our Lord, see Lightfoot, /enatian Epistles, vol. 1., p. 595. 


62 CESSATION OF THE PERSECUTION. |[cH. Iv. 


With the death of Polycarp the persecution ceased. 
Eusebius says that several Asiatic Christians had suffered 
death, among them a follower of Marcion by name 
Metrodorus; but this is not correct, as Metrodorus 
suffered in the Decian persecution at the same time as 
Pionius (A.D. 250). The historian found the account of 
these martyrdoms in the same volume (TH avr7 ypad7) 
as the letter of the church of Smyrna. 


1. Euseb., H. Z.1v. 15. Bp. Lightfoot (of. czt. p. 624) thinks that 
Eusebius must have been misled by the phrase % avr} zeplodos rod ypdvov 
which possibly stood at the head of the Acta Pionii, and which expression 
he himself uses in this passage. The words may mean ‘the same epoch’ 
as well as ‘the same recurring period of the year’, z.¢. the same time of 
year as when Polycarp was martyred, and Eusebius has taken it in the 
former sense. 


CHAPTER. V. 


THE CONQUEST OF HEATHENISM BY CHRISTIANITY. 


A.D. 161—A.D. 313. 


ECCLESIASTICAL history sometimes has epochs not 
exactly synchronising with political events. The age 
of the Antonines which closes with the death of Marcus 
Aurelius does not conclude an era of Church history, 
whilst the accession of that emperor distinctly marks 
a new period in the development of Christianity. The 
Roman Government began to regard the Church as an 
institution which must be suppressed by force, and 
persecuted, not merely in order to gratify the people, 
but to extirpate an unlawful association. In spite 
of long truces and temporary agreements, Christianity 
and the State had become two rival powers striving 
for the mastery of the world, and until the close of 
the final contest under Diocletian there could be no 
real peace between them.! 

The Church was herself fully prepared for the 
struggle. During the first century of her existence 
she had perfected her organization, and her leaders, 
the bishops, had obtained unquestioned authority. 
Her contests with\ heresy had forced her to give her 
teaching a clearer and more dogmatic form, and as 
a consequence of this she had almost come to a final 
decision as to the composition of her Bible. The 


1. It is well to remember that besides the public persecution of 
Christians, believers were subject to the family tribunals over which the 
head of the household presided with almost unlimited power. Fathers 
disinherited their sons, and threw their most valued slaves into the horrible 
ergastula for professing the Faith, Tertullian, ad Natzones, 1. 4. 


64 CELEBRATED CHRISTIANS. (cH. v. 


constant communication maintained by the various 
churches throughout the empire gave her a strength 
and unity which contributed greatly to her final triumph. 
We cannot fail also to notice that the age which suc- ~ 
ceeded the conflict of the persecution under Marcus 
Aurelius produced really great men in every part of 
the Christian world. Gaul, which had been visited 
by the severest trial, could boast of St. Irenaeus bishop 
of Lyons. Rome had the learned St. Hippolytus and 
Caius;? Africa was famous for Tertullian, and Egypt 
for Clement of Alexandria. All these Fathers flourished 
towards the close of the second century or the beginning 
of the third, and proved conclusively that the Church 
was capable of attracting not merely slaves and women 
but the leading minds of the age. 
; The Emperor M. Aurelius, in whose 
Mares en tga” reign the Church endured the most severe 
trial she had hitherto undergone, differed 
greatly in character and disposition from persecutors 
like Nero and Domitian. He seems to have reconciled 
in his person the virtues of the Porch with the gentler 
grace, of the gospel, for the tone of his writings is 
sometimes marvellously Christian. Perhaps no sovereign 
ever reigned more exclusively for the welfare of his 
people than Marcus Aurelius, while his personal life 
appears to have been singularly blameless. His virtues 
were however precisely those which would be most 
likely to make him dislike the Christian system. He 
was naturally of a religious disposition, and this had 
been fostered by the piety of his mother. His philosophy 
attempted to steer a clear path between infidelity and 
superstition, and his desire was to restore the ancient 
reverence both for the gods and for the virtues of antiquity. 
Believing, as he did, that the gods communicated with 
men by dreams and other means, he did all in his power 
to introduce the ancient ceremonies, and his sacrifices 
before the war with the Marcomanni provoked the 


1. Who Caius was is extremely difficult to say. He is quoted by 
Eusebius, 7. #. 11. 25, and mentioned in vI. 20 and 111. 28. He has 
been identified with Hippolytus, see the note in the edition of Eusebius in 
The Nicene and post-Nicene Fathers, by Dr. McGiffert, p. 229, on bk, 11. 
ch, 25. ; 


CH. V.] LIBELS AGAINST THE CHURCH. 65 


ridicule of the heathen epigrammatist: of ANevKol Boes 
Madpxo t@ Katcapu: dv av vixnons, jets amr@dopeba) 
The Stoic philosophy of the Emperor also tended to 
prejudice him against the Church, and he specially: 
condemns the obstinacy with which the Christians 
met death, contrasting it with the calmness of the 
philosopher whose judgment is guided by reason.? 

To this must be added the prejudices against the 
Christians which had been instilled into the Emperor’s 
mind by his preceptors. Fronto of Cirta, the tutor of 
M. Aurelius, for example, lent his name to the vulgar 
libels which charged the Christians with shameful 
orgies at their love feasts.2 Nor must we forget that 
the reign of Marcus Aurelius was marked by many 
frightful calamities, the year 166, during which a serious 
outbreak of persecution occured throughout the Empire, 
being known as the annus calamitosus. Every evil which 
the prudence of man could not avert seems to have 
afflicted the world; famines, pestilence, the overflow 
of the Tiber, the invasion of the Marcomanni and Quadi. 
No wonder that the populace should have sought to 
propitiate their offended gods by attacking the men 
whom they in their ignorance styled atheists.‘ 

oid & At Rome several Christians suffered 
Fersecutions in martyrdom, the most notable being St. 
Marous SR erotiae, Justin the Apologist. He was tried with 
six others by Q. Junius Rusticus,® who 

entered upon his duties as prefect of the city in a.p. 163. 


I. Neander, Ch. Hest., vol. 1., p. 148. The epigram is preserved by 
Ammianus Marcellinus, xxv. 4. 17. 

2. Neander, /.¢., p. 146. 

3. Bp. Lightfoot (Apostolic Fathers, part. 11., vol. i., p. 513) quotes 
from Minucius Felix, Octav. 9: ‘‘ Et de convivio notum est. Passim omnes 
locuntur. Id etiam Cirtensis nostri testatur oratio. Ad epulas solemni 
die coeunt,” etc. Jb. 31: ‘‘Et de incesto convivio fabulam grandem 
adversum nos daemonum coitio mentita est...sic de isto et tuus Fronto, non 
ut affirmator testimonium fecit, sed conuicium ut orator, aspersit.” 

Prof. Ramsay (Zhe Church tn the Roman Empire, p. 336) says 
that ‘‘ during this reign the active pursuit of the Christians had become a 
marked feature,” and gives the evidence of Celsus (Origen, adv. Ce/, vit. 
69), of Melito (who, as quoted by Eusebius, H.Z. Iv. 26, speaks of the 
new decrees by which the Christians were sought out), and of Athenagoras 
and Theophilus of Antioch. 

These martyrdoms are taken from Bp. Lightfoot’s Ajostolie 
Fathers, part 11. vol. i., p. 493; see also Euseb., HZ. Iv. 16. 


RK 


66 MARTYRDOM OF JUSTIN. — (cH. Vv. 


Justin had long complained of the plots of a certain 
Crescens, a philosopher, who desired his death and 
also tried to compass the death of Justin’s pupil 
Tatian,! afterwards the founder of the sect of the 
Encratites. Polycrates of Ephesus mentions a martyr 
by name Thraseas and some others, from which it is 
inferred that the persecution in which Polycarp suffered 
was renewed under M. Aurelius.? The Acts of the 
Martyrs also relate that the widow Felicitas and her 
seven sons were executed at Rome; probably in A.p. 162. 

Persecutions occurred at Madaura in Africa and also 
at Scillium or Scilla in the same province. (A.D. 180.)* But 
though our list of martyrdoms is somewhat meagre, 
we may attribute this to the absence of direct informa- 
tion. All the Apologists, Justin Martyr, Melito, 
Athenagoras, Minucius Felix, tell the same tale,* and 
we are told that in the reign of Commodus a large 
number of Christian confessors were liberated from 
the Sardinian mines. Perhaps however the best way 
of estimating the severity of the persecution is to 
take the record of the one well-known persecution 
of this reign, which took place at Lyons and Vienne. 
‘Ex uno disce omnes,’ and the cruelty exercised in Gaul 
with the Emperor’s permission was probably not con- 
fined to one province.° 


1. There is a difficulty in the text. In Tatian’s Cohortatio ad 
Graecos he says that Crescens plotted against both Tatian and Justin. 
Eusebius in quoting him reads weyddw for xal éué ws, completely altering 
the force of the passage: see Gebhardt and Harnack’s Zexfe Iv. 1, and 
the note on Euseb. 4.2. Iv. 16 in the Wécene and Post-Nicene Fathers. 

2. Euseb., 4.2. v. 24. Bp. Lightfoot, of. czt., pp. 495—499- 

3. The Acts of the Scillitan martyrs are published in the Cambridgs 
Texts and Studies edited by Dean Armitage Robinson in his Appendix to the 
Acts of St. Perpetua. Now that the disputed reading in the Latin recension as 
to the name of the Consul or Consuls has been decided, it is certain that the 
persecution was in A.D. 180. Sentence was pronounced in the following 
form: ‘‘Speratum, Nartzalum, Cittinum, Donatam, Vestiam, Secundam 
et ceteros ritu Christiano se vivere confessos, quoniam oblata sibi facultate 
ad Romanorum morem redeundi obstinanter perseveraverunt, gladio 
animadverti placet.” 

4. Lightfoot, of. cz. 510. Bp. Lightfoot’s first volume of 
Apostolic Fathers, part 11. (St. Ignatius and St. Polycarp), is worth read- 
ing if only to shew how materials ought to be collected by the historian, 
The vastness of the labour of this great theologian, if fully realised, might 
well deter the boldest from presuming even to follow him afar off. 

5. Euseb., 4.£. v. introd, 


CH. V.] PERSECUTION IN GAUL. 67 


The persecution began, to all appear- 
Persecution at ance, with the mob, at whose hands the 
Lyons and Vienne. Christ : 
AD. 177. ristians were exposed to every kind of 
insult... They were then arrested, and 
imprisoned till the governor arrived. Vettius Epagathus, 
a man of high rank, protested before the governor, con- 
fessed himself a Christian, and was condemned with his 
brethren. He was styled the advocate of the Christians,? 
and was the first to suffer execution. Ten of those 
arrested recanted, to the inexpressible grief of the others. 
In their letter to the churches of Asia it is said that the 
martyrs were never left by their brethren who were still 
at liberty. Arrests continued, and some of the slaves 
confessed that their Christian masters were guilty of 
Thyesteian banquets and Oedipodoean incests,® crimes 
which had long been attributed to the Christians through 
the ignorance of the people. These confessions, extorted 
by torture from slaves, made the people rage like wild 
beasts against the Christians.‘ A female slave, however, 
named Blandina, was tortured for a whole day, so cruelly 
that her tormentors wondered that she still continued to 
live. She died some days later in the amphitheatre, firm to 
the very last. Sanctus, a deacon of the Church of Lyons, 
was tormented by having plates of red-hot brass attached 
to his body ;° he said nothing but ‘Christianus sum.’ A 
slave girl named Biblias had charged the Christians with 


1. Euseb., ZZ. v. 1. hypiwuérvy rrjOe. It seems as though the 

mob had been worked up to a state of frenzy by tales of abominations 
practised by the Christians. For some time before the persecution no 
Christian dared to shew himself in public. 

2. mapdk\yTos XporiavGy. It is not quite certain whether he was 
put to death: Renan thinks he was not. Eusebius’ words are ‘he was 
received into the number of the martyrs.’ 

Ovécreca Seirva, cat Oldirodelovs plters. The manner in which 
the early Fathers defended the Church against these horrible charges, was 
to say that the evil conduct of some heretics gave a sort of justification 
to them. See Justin, 4fo/. 1. 26; Euseb., H. Z. Iv. 7; Iren., Haer. 1. 
25.3. It must be remembered that in the middle ages the Jews were 
accused of sacrificial murder throughout Europe, and in obscure and 
ignorant communities the charge is still made from time to time. 

4. dmweOnpiwOnoay els nuds. The torturing of slaves to obtain evidence 
against their masters is a proof that Christians were proceeded against under 
the laws against treason. Gaston Boissier, La /im du Paganisme, 1. 422. 

5. Tots Tpupepwrdras wédect, 

E 2 


68 THE MARTYRS OF LYONS AND VIENNE. [cu. y. 


great crimes; she was again tortured, recanted all she 
had said, and met her death as a Christian. A large 
number died in prison, especially those who had not been 
previously disciplined.’ 

Pothinus, the bishop of Lyons, who was over ninety, 
was beaten and ill-used in a most brutal manner, and 
died in prison. Sanctus, Maturus, and Attalus were all 
tortured again in the amphitheatre. Blandina after 
surviving her earlier tortures was bound to a stake 
and exposed to wild beasts. Attalus was roasted 
alive before the people. A youth, aged fifteen, called 
Ponticus, and the slave girl Blandina were brought 
out every day to see the tortures of the rest; the 


latter was the last to die. She was thrown into a net. 


and gored to death by a bull. The bodies of the martyrs 
were denied burial, and finally burned to ashes and cast 
into the Rhone. The Emperor approved of this shocking 
persecution when the governor of the province consulted 
him about some prisoners. Such then were the horrors 
perpetrated in Gaul, partly through the cruelty of the 
governor, but mainly to gratify popular’odium against 
the Christians. The fanaticism of the Gallic mob isa 
noteworthy feature of one of the most terrible persecu- 
tions on record. Gregory of Tours estimates the number 
of victims as forty-eight but gives only forty-five names.’ 

The letter of the martyrs of Lyons and Vienne is 
justly considered as one of the most beautiful and 
touching monuments of Christian antiquity. Although 
the martyrs are full of a spirit of mysticism scarcely 
comprehensible to us, and despite other extravagances 
of language, it is impossible for us not to recognise a 
truly Christian spirit in almost every line of their letter. 
There is no hatred for those who fell away unable to 
endure the torments inflicted on them, no self-glorifi- 
cation, but most wonderful tenderness to the fallen 
accompanied by singular humility.® 


I, of dé veapol al dpre cuverAnupévor, Gv wn WpoKaryKicTo Ta Tdpara, 
7d Bdpos obx &pepov rijs cuykdeloews adr’ Evdov évaréOvncKxory, For the 
horrors endured by the martyrs in prison see Pillet St. Perpetua, Le Blant 
Les Persecuteurs et les Martyres. 

2. Quoted by Lightfoot, of. ¢z¢., p. 500. 

3. Kenan, Marcus Aurelius, ch. xix, 


a 


ee eee ee ee 


iil 


CH. V.] DEFEAT OF THE QUADI, 69 


pee at The Emperor Marcus Aurelius is said to 
Legion. A.D. 174, have shewn favour to the Christians on 
account of the wonderful deliverance of 
his army in his war against the Quadi. ‘The story is 
too remarkable to be classed contemptuously among 
the ecclesiastical legends of the period: it is related 
within five years of the occurrence of the miracle and 
is supported by heathen as well as Christian testimonies.! 
At the same time there are many and grave reasons 
for rejecting a considerable part of the narrative. The 
story is as follows: When Marcus Aurelius was engaged 
in the war against the Quadi the enemy had succeeded 
in cutting off the water supply for the Roman army, and 
it seemed to be threatened with destruction. The 
soldiers of the twelfth legion, which at that time had 
its head quarters at Melitene on the Euphrates, were 
all Christians. They fell on their knees and prayed 
for rain. Instantly a terrible storm discomfited the 
barbarians, and gave the water the Romans so sorely 
needed. Marcus obtained a splendid victory. 
Everybody believed it was a miracle. Dion Cassius 
(A.D. 220) says that an Egyptian magician procured the 
rain by his prayers. ‘Themistius (a.p. 389) says the rain 
was in answer to the prayers of the Emperor, who said 
‘With this hand I invoke and supplicate the Giver of 
life—this hand which never took away life.’?. Even the 
Christian Sibyl attributes the rain to the piety of the 
Emperor, to whom the God of heaven would refuse 
nothing. The poet Claudian (a.p. 404) doubts whether 
it was the magic or the piety of Marcus that caused 
the rain. Contemporary art confirmed the narrative: 
on the Antonine column at Rome, Jupiter Pluvius is 
there represented, and the soldiers catch in their shields 
the rain which falls from his hair and beard. The 


1. The evidence has been most carefully sifted by Bp. Lightfoot, 
Apostolic Fathers, part 11. vol. ii., pp. 469—476. 

2. Lightfoot, op. czt., p. 472. 

3. Oracl. Sib., X11. 196, quoted by Lightfoot, of. cét., p. 473. 

4. Claudian de VI. Cons. Honor., 348—350: 
Chaldaea mago seu carmina ritu 
Armavere deos: seu (quod reor) omne Tonantis 
Obsequium Marci mores potuere mereri, 


70 THE NAME OF THE LEGION. [cH v. 


Christian account is substantially the same as the Pagan, 
only it attributes the deliverance solely to the prayers of 
the Christians. The letter of Marcus to the Senate 
describing the event is a palpable forgery, but on the 
other hand the writer shews considerable acquaintance 
with the men of histime. Eusebius relates that Claudius 
Apollinaris, who was a contemporary, says that the 
Emperor called the legion ‘the Thundering”! in memory 
of the event. Tertullian is equally explicit. He cites 
the incident as one familiarly known in his time as the 
cause of Marcus Aurelius having treated the Christians 
with lenity.? But in spite of there being a large con- 
sensus of evidence in support of the fact, several 
questions must be raised. For the name ‘Thundering’ 
was given to the twelfth legion as early as the time of 
Augustus. Dion Cassius speaks of it as the twelfth 
legion in Cappadocia 76 xepavvodopor.® Inscriptions also 
confirm this and shew that Dion does not give the title 
by anticipation. Again the legion was called in the 
Latin Fulminata not Fulminatrix, probably because 
of the emblem worn by the soldiers. The fifth legion 
was called Alauda from the larks which adorned the 
soldiers’ helmets. And lastly the station of the twelfth 
legion was in the East, as far as possible from the seat 
of the Marcomannic war. Bp. Lightfoot is, however, 
disposed to think that there is some truth in the Chris- 
tian narrative: a legion from Melitene would be likely 
to contain many Christian soldiers; the transmission of 
legions to great distances was not uncommon in time 
of war. That Christians should pray for rain in time 
of drought was to be expected. ‘The rest of the story 
is fictitious: the Emperor certainly never asked for 
their prayers, and the persecution at Lyons and Vienne 
in A.D. 177 proves that he did not mitigate the severity 
of his treatment of the Christians. 


1. .E.v.5. The word used by Cl. Apollinaris, whom Eusebius 
quotes, is kepavvoBorov. The meaning depends on the accent: KepavvdBedov 
= thunderstruck (Fulminata); KepavvoBd\ov = Thunder-Striker (Fulmin- 
atrix). Lightfoot, of. cét., p. 474. See also the preface to the Translation - 
of the Medztations of M. Aurelius, by G. Long. 

2. Apology, ch. Vv. 

3. Dion Cass, lv. 23. 


, 
F 
. : 
4 


OS Pe ee 


CH. V.] PEACE UNDER COMMODUS, 71 


Survey of the It is not right to narrate the only blot 
beneficent policy on the reign of this good emperor without 
ON bueno! at least a cursory allusion to his many 
‘ ‘virtues and to the benefits he strove to 
confer upon his subjects. The laws of slavery were 
mitigated so far that to kill aslave was acrime; nor was it 
allowable to sell separately husband, wife, and children. 
The enfranchisement of slaves was in every way favoured. 
Criminal law was softened, fiscal abuses were put down. 
Marcus Aurelius hated the gladiatorial games and armed 
the gladiators for the public service during the Marco- 
mannic war. M. Renan says that during this reign we 
even hear of mattresses being placed under rope-dancers 
and of people not being allowed to fight except their 
arms were covered.! All these acts of Marcus make us 
regret the more the fatal mistake he made in regard to 
his Christian subjects. 
The son of Marcus Aurelius was in 
awgo ie2, every respect the opposite of his father, in 
spite of a most careful education. The 
philosophers talked to him in vain of virtue and temper- 
ance, their fine precepts fell on deaf ears. But the 
fencing master and the trainer of gladiators found an 
apt pupil, and their training was the sole education 
which he appreciated. The reign of Commodus was 
a disgrace to humanity, and his death (a.p. 192) a 
blessing to the Empire.? Yet under this monster of 
iniquity the Church enjoyed peace. Eusebius especially 
says ‘there was peace by the grace of God prevail- 
ing in the churches throughout the whole world.’® 
This is said to have been owing to the influence of the 
Emperor’s concubine, Marcia, who for some reason 
shewed herself favourable to the Christians. . The 
Roman confessors condemned to labour in the mines 
of Sardinia were recalled. One martyrdom, however, 
is related—that of Apollonius, a senator; but Eusebius 
tells us that the informer who gave evidence against him 
was also put to death. 
1. Renan, Marcus Aurelius, ch. ii. 
2. Gibbon (Decline and Fall, chap. iv.) gives a graphic description 
of the infamies of Commodus. 
a rusep., 4. 2. v.21. 


4. Hieron., Script. Eccl, 42, mentions the slave Severus as the 
delator, but says nothing of his execution. The whole story is confused. 


72 SEPTIMIUS SEVERUS PERSECUTES, [cu. v. 


Pertinax, an excellent and virtuous senator, was 
chosen to succeed Commodus in A.D. 193, but he was 
murdered by the praetorian guards, who sold the 
empire to Didius Julian. Civil war broke out; 
Pescennius Niger, Claudius Albinus, and Septimius 
Severus were the rivals for the empire, for no one 
regarded Julian’s claim seriously. Peace was restored 
by Septimius Severus becoming emperor upon the death 
of his competitors. 

Septimius Severus, according to Tertul- 

Septimius lian, began by treating the Christians 

Severus. . . F : es 

AD. 193—2u1. With leniency owing to his having been 

cured of a disease by a Christian slave 

named Proculus.! In the year 202 this emperor passed 
a law forbidding people to be made Jews, and ordained 
the same in regard to the Christians. It is very 
questionable whether this gave any legal footing to 
those already Christians, or merely forbade proselytising. 
Neander seems to be right in his contention that the 
Jews were protected as a nation, but that the Christians 
could not claim any such recognition, and that the 
date of conversion had nothing to do with the guilt 
or innocence of those who embraced their tenets? A 
very fierce persecution raged in Egypt, especially at 
Alexandria; and Leonides, the father of Origen, was 
one of the martyrs.‘ It was so severe that many regarded 
it as a sign of Antichrist.” The Church in proconsular 
Africa also suffered severely, and this 

Martyrdom ~ province was the scene of one of the 

her companions, ™most famous martyrdoms of the early 
Church—that of St. Perpetua, St. Felicitas 

and their companions, in or about the year 202. 
The number of martyrs was five in all: three young 
men, Revocatus, Saturninus, and Secundulus, and the 
two young women. Perpetua, who was only twenty- 
two years of age, was married and had an infant 

1. Ad Scapulam, c. iv. 

2. Aelius Spartianus, Severus, c. xvii. ‘*Judaeos fieri sub gravi poena 
vetuit. Idem etiam de Christianis sanxit.”” Neumann denies the 
existence of any edict by S. Severus. See Ramsay, of. czt., p. 194. 

3. Neander, Christian Church, vol. 1., p. 166 foll. Bohn’s transl, 

4. Buseb. 22 vie 1s 


5. Eusebius, 2. Z. vi. 7, on a writer named Judas who is otherwise 
unknown, who is said to have written on the seventy weeks of Daniel. 


=a, 4. Se - 


CH. V.] PERPETUA AND FELICITAS. 73 


at the breast, but had probably lost her husband, of whom 
no mention is made inthe Acta. They were all catechu- 
mens, but the clergy obtained access to them and baptized 
them in prison. Perpetua’s father came beseeching her 
to have pity on her family and recant. The governor 
begged her to offer sacrifice for the Emperor. But she 
remained firm, and was condemned with the others to be 
thrown to the beasts. The day of martyrdom was the 
birthday of Geta, the Emperor’s son. It was usual to 
dress the victims in priestly robes before they were given 
to the beasts; but Perpetua and her companions remon- 
strated, saying they suffered that they might not be forced 
to take part in such abominations. The reasonableness 
of the objection was allowed and they were not compelled 
to wear the dresses. Felicitas, like Blandina of Lyons, 
was a slave, and her courage shewed the elevation of 
character imparted to the most degraded classes by the 
Christian religion. While awaiting her execution she 
became a mother. In her pangs she cried out, and the 
jailor asked her how she would endure the beasts if she 
could not bear this pain. She replied, ‘What I now 
suffer I suffer myself, but then there will be Another who 
will suffer with me, because I also shall suffer for Him.’ 
The persecution in Africa lasted into 
Gots. Caraca™ the reigns of Geta and Caracalla. Geta 
e was soon murdered by his brother Cara- 
calla, one of the most blood-thirsty tyrants that ever 
ruled the empire; and his reign was one of terror. 
It does not seem that the Christians especially were 
persecuted, but there was no change in the law, and in 
several provinces they were ill-treated. 
We have now reached a period during 
Disorders inthe which the Empire sank to the lowest 
AT eh ONS. state of degradation. The government for 
nearly seventy years was a military des- 
potism, and the armies of the Republic made their chiefs 


1. The Acts of Perpetua and Felicitas have been edited by Prof. 
Rendel Harris and Mr. S. Gifford (Cambridge, 1890), and in the first 
of the Cambridge 7exts and Studies by Dean Armitage Robinson (1891), 
who has convincingly shewn that the Latin Acts are earlier than the Greek, 
and has given good reason for supposing that Tertullian may have been the 
editor of the Visions and the author of the Acts of Martyrdom. The 
Abbé Pillet has written a history of St. Perpetua (Lille and Paris, 1885). 


74 SYRIAN WORSHIP IN ROME. (CH. v. 


emperors and deposed them at pleasure. Roman birth 
was no longer a necessary qualification for the purple: a 
Syrian, an Arab, a Goth were acknowledged as emperors. 
Nearly every one of the seventeen Caesars from Helio- 
gabalus (a.p. 218) to Numerian (a.p. 283) died a violent 
death. This season of anarchy and misery was marked 
by the rapid growth of the Church, in which it appeared 
peace was alone to be found. 


. An intrigue with the army placed 
Beliogabalisy, Elagabalus or Heliogabalus in possession 
of the Empire. He was by birth a Syrian 
and a priest of the Phoenician sun-god.! The four years 
he was allowed to reign proved him, if we may believe 
the historians, to be one of the vilest of mankind, fana- 
tically devoted to the worship of Baal, and given up 
to the vicious luxury of Syria. But the Christians were 
rather favoured than otherwise, the Emperor’s great 
desire being to exalt his beloved Syrian deity at the 
expense of the gods of Rome. ‘The idol of Emesa was 
brought to Rome, and the Palladium, the sacred image 
of Minerva, the mystic symbol of the favour of the gods 
to Rome, was chosen as his consort. After a time, 
however, the god divorced her, and a more congenial 
spouse was brought from Carthage.? The fact of the 
ancient gods of Rome being thus insulted, and of 
their worshippers being compelled by the Emperor to 
figure in processions in honour of an oriental god, 
must have done much to weaken the public belief in 
their power. 
The murdered Elagabalus was suc- 
eens ceeded by his cousin, the mild and amiable 
Ap. 999-935, Alexander Severus. This emperor, being 
an oriental, had not the fanatical hatred 
towards the Christians which possessed those who 
desired to restore the ancient severity of Roman disci- 
pline. His religion was eclectic, and his Lararium or 
private chapel is said to have contained busts of Abraham, 
Orpheus, Apollonius of Tyana, and Christ. So leniently 
was Christianity regarded under Alexander, that Mamaea 


I. His official name was Antoninus. 
2. Milman, Aéstory of Christianity, vol. 1., p. 174. 


ae Ee Se eS es, Oe 


CH. V.] A PERIOD OF REST. 75 


the Emperor’s mother’ sent for Origen, when he was at 
Alexandria, and received instruction from him. Tille- 
mont asserts that the first Christian churches were erected 
in the reign of Alexander Severus.’ 
Alexander Severus was of too mild and 
Maximin the amiable a character to restrain the insub- 
Thracian. ; : ; 
A.D. 235—237, Ordination of his army. He was murdered 
in 235,and Maximin, a Thracian barbarian, 
seized the empire. The Christians suffered as friends of 
the late Alexander, but there seems to have been nothing 
like a general persecution.® 
clea A season of tranquillity as far as the 
Aordians. Church was concerned followed the death 
A.D. 237-244. of Maximin. Philip is said to have 
AD o44949, been a Christian. It is added that he 
tried to enter a Christian church on Easter 
eve, but was not allowed by the bishop till he had joined 
the ranks of the penitents. The Emperor obeyed the 
bishop, thus shewing an edifying example‘ of his piety. 
Although the story bears evident traces of being apocry- 
phal, it is none the less interesting as shewing the general 
impression Philip’s reign produced upon the Christians. 
No act, coin or monument of Philip shews any Christian 
bias, and the ludi saeculaves in commemoration of the 
thousandth anniversary of the foundation of Rome were 
celebrated with extraordinary splendour and no doubt 
with many heathen rites. . 

The long period of prosperity which the Church had 
now enjoyed produced a great change in the attitude of 
the Christians towards the Empire. The writings of 
Tertullian, for example, breathe nothing but the most 
implacable hatred towards the persecutors of the Church. 
The reason why Christians pray for the Emperor, 
according to his view, is because at the end of the 


1. Euseb., H, &. vi. 21. 

2. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, ch. xvi. The 
laws against the Christians were not yet formally relaxed. 

3. Neander (Church History, vol. 1., p. 175) observes of this reign: 
‘©The persecutions were indeed confined to particular provinces, so that 
Christians could save themselves by flying from one province to another. 

Euseb., H. #. vi. 34. Apparently the historian is in doubt. 
xaréxet \éyos is his expression. 


76 REVIVAL OF ROMAN SEVERITY.  [cH.V. 


Roman empire Antichrist will appear... But a most 
complete reversal of these sentiments is found expressed 
by Origen towards the middle of the third century. In 
the last book of his reply to Celsus he says, “ If” as Celsus 
says “all did as I do, then the barbarians also would 
receive the Divine Word and become the most moral and 
gentle of men. All other religions would cease from the 
earth and Christianity alone would be supreme, which 
indeed is destined one day to have the supremacy, since 
the divine truth is continually bringing more souls under 
its sway.’* But Origen was sagacious enough to see 
that this consummation was not to come without severe 
persecution. Once the Church entertained the idea of 
being supreme in the Roman Empire she entered upon a 
contest, the issues of which were annihilation or a com- 
plete triumph. Directly the enfeebled Empire regained 
even a temporary accession of strength it was bound to 
try conclusions with the ever increasing Church. | 
ones It was the object of Decius to be a 
eran second Trajan and to revive the ancient 
; Roman discipline. For this purpose, 
shortly before his death, the Emperor restored the office 
of censor, which had long since fallen into desuetude. Per- 
secution was the natural consequence of such a policy. 
We have already seen that the ancient Roman ideal was 
totally irreconcileable with Christianity, and the first 
attempt to revive it was certain to imperil the Church. 
The persecution of Decius was the most systematic and 
successful attempt to stamp out the Faith. Hitherto the 
attacks of the heathen magistrates had been local, and 
irregularly directed. The Church in one province might 
have rest, whilst in another a severe persecution 
was raging. Marcus Aurelius, for example, seems 
rather to have sanctioned the horrors of Lyons and 
Vienne than to have actively encouraged a general 
onslaught on the Christians. The reason may have 
been the comparative insignificance of their numbers, 


I.. Tertullian, Apology, ch. 32. See Robertson, History of Christian 
Church, vol. 1., p. 112, ed. 1875. 


2. Origen contra Celsum, VIII. 68, quoted by Neander, Church 
History, Vol. by p. 179. 


CH. V.]} THE PERSECUTION BY DECIUS. 7/7 


which made the statesmen of the second century but 
little apprehensive of the progress of their opinions. 
But by the middle of the third century all was changed. 
The comparative immunity which the Church had 
enjoyed during the reigns of the late emperors, and the 
attractions which she offered amid the miseries of the 
times, had been the means of greatly multiplying her 
numbers; and as we have seen, Christians like Origen 
had begun already to discuss the possibility of converting 
the entire empire. Accordingly Decius regarded the 
spread of the Faith as a very serious public danger, and 
determined to proceed to deal with it as such. It was 
his design totally to suppress Christianity,! and it is 
this which helps us to account for the character of his 
persecution, and for the policy of such great Christian 
leaders as St. Cyprian, in taking prudent measures for 
their own safety instead of courting the glories of 
martyrdom. They recognised the extreme seriousness 
of the crisis, and saw that the real need of the Church 
was not so much of heroes who were ready to rush upon 
martyrdom, as of the counsels of moderate men to check 
the rash enthusiasm of those whose zeal imperilled 
her very existence. We can also understand why the 
persecution under Decius produced so many apostasies. 
In the first place, the blow was struck suddenly, when 
after a long cessation of annoyances many had grown 
up as Christians without thinking they might be called 
upon to lay down their lives for the Faith; and in the 
second place, whilst the bishops were attacked with 
unsparing severity, every inducement was offered to the 
laity to abandon their creed. 

_ Decius in an edict published early in a.p. 250, which 
has not been preserved, imitated the policy of Trajan 
towards the Christians.2? The order of procedure seems 
to have been as follows: The magistrates were bidden 
under severe penalties to assemble all the Christians and 
to command them to sacrifice. ‘Those who consented to 


1. Neander, Church History, vol. 1., p. 181. 

2. For the edict we have the authority of Cyprian in his treatise 
de Lapsts. Gregory of Nyssa gives an account of it in his life of Gregory 
Thaumaturgus. 


78 THE LIBELLATICI. _ [CH. v. 


do this were subjected to no further annoyance. Those 
who fled suffered confiscation of their goods and were 
forbidden to return on pain of death. Those who 
refused to sacrifice were to be examined by the magistrate 
and five citizens, and torture and imprisonment were to 
be employed to make them alter their resolution. The 
penalty of death was seldom resorted to: at Alexandria, 
for example, a boy called Dioscorus was dismissed after he 
had been severely tortured, in order that he might have 
time for reflection. It is a proof of the progress of 
Christianity in public favour, that we hear nothing of 
the abominable crimes of which believers were accused 
at an earlier period. Nor do we find that the magistrates 
tortured the Christians for the pleasure of the mob, as in 
the persecution at Lyons and Vienne. On the contrary, 
the magistrates appear to have done all in their power 
to evade the law by granting for a sum of money 
certificates to say that persons who had not sacrificed 
had performed the command of the Emperor.) This 
practice was looked upon with great disfavour by all 
right-minded Christians. “Those who had thus purchased 
the favour of the government were styled libellatict, and 
they were considered to have in a measure apostatised. 
In spite, however, of the defection of many, some of the 
Christians shewed a noble spirit of endurance. What 
words can express more adequately the spirit of the true 
confessor than the letter to Cyprian of the Roman 
Christians who had already beena year in prison: “ What 
more glorious and blessed lot,” they say, “can by God’s 
grace fall to man, than, amid tortures and the fear of 
death itself, to confess God the Lord with lacerated 
bodies, and a spirit departing but yet free to confess 
Christ the Son of God; to become fellow-sufferers with 
Christ in the name of Christ? If we have not yet shed 
our blood we are ready to shed it. Pray, then, beloved 
Cyprian, that the Lord would daily confirm and 
strengthen each one of us more and more with the power 


1. Two of these /zde//i have been discovered; one among the 
Brugsch Papyri now in the Museum at Berlin, first deciphered by 
Dr. Krebs and published in the ‘ Proceedings of the Prussian Academy of 
Science,’ Nov. 30, 1893; the other by Professor Wesseley. Both are 
published in Harnack’s Zheol. Lit. Zezt. 


CH. V.] MARTYRS UNDER DECIUS. 79 


of His might, and that He, as the best of captains, may 
at length conduct to the battle-field which is before us 
His soldiers, whom He has trained and proved in the 
dangerous camp, armed with those divine weapons, 
which can never be conquered.”* ‘The martyrs in this 
reign were for the most part bishops; Fabian of Rome, 
Babylas of Antioch, who died in prison, Pionius of 
Smyrna, Polyeuctes of Armenia, Carpus of Thyatira and 
his deacon, Alexander of Jerusalem, Acacius of the 
Phrygian Antioch, and many others, are named in the 
martyrologies, shewing that during the short reign of 
Decius hardly a province of the empire was exempt 
from persecution.’ 
ares Valerian had been chosen by Decius 
A.D. 253-960, +O fill the ancient office of censor. When 
he became Emperor he favoured the 
Christians and stayed the persecution against them. But 
Valerian was addicted to the practice of magic, and to 
enquiring into the secrets of futurity, and it is possible 
that the adepts of the black art, whom he consulted, 
Were more opposed to the spread of Christianity than 
even the pagan priests. Macrianus, his ablest general 
and treasurer, whom Dionysius terms an Egyptian 
magician, is said to have influenced Valerian against 
the Christians and to have directed the policy of the 
Emperor in this matter.2 In 257 an edict appeared 
forbidding the assemblies of Christians and threatening 
with death the bishops who would not conform. 
Dionysius, the great bishop of Alexandria, and Cyprian 
bishop of Carthage, were exiled under this edict; the 
latter seems to have been treated with the greatest 
possible consideration. His place of banishment was 
Curubis or Curobus, a pleasant town by the sea shore, 
and he was summoned thence by Galerius the proconsul 
of Africa, who reluctantly condemned him to be beheaded. 


1. Cyprian, Zp. 26. Neander, Ch. A7st., vol. 1., p. 184. 

z. Dr. Plumptre, Article ‘ Decius’, Dict. Christian Biog. Dr. 
Harnack in his Altchristlichen Literatur, vol. 11., gives a list of Acts ot 
Martyrs during this persecution. He attaches most importance to the 
Passto Piontt, Acta Disputationss S. Achatit, Acta S. Maximiand the Acta 
SS. Luciani et Marciant. In these Acts no element of the miraculous 
occurs. 

3. Milman, Hest. Christianity, vol. 11., pp. 191 foll. Euseb., 2. &. 
VIII. 10, quoting Dionysius. 


80 DEATH OF CYPRIAN, [Ch. v. 


He suffered death, but to the very last he was subjected 
to no insult by either the government or the populace. 
The Christians had outlived the unpopularity which 
had caused the persecutions of the previous century. 

Just before the death of Cyprian, in the 
summer of A.D. 258, Valerian, at a meeting 
of all his great officers at Thermae neat 
Byzantium, issued his second edict, which is justly con- 
widered an important turning point in the history of the 
early persecutions of the Church. By Valerian’s statute 
the penalties for Christianity were codified in an elabor- 
ate and invariable table.’ For the clergy the punish- 
ment was death, apparently without any hope of escape 
by recantation. All persons of the rank of senators and 
knights were to be punished by loss of rank and confisca- 
tion of property, and, if they persisted, they were to be 
put to death. Ladies were to lose their property and to 
be exiled. Caesariani, or dependents on the Emperor, if 
they had at any time professed Christianity, were to be 
sent to work in chains on the imperial estates.? 

The policy of Gallienus towards the 

AL 060 26s, Christians is another instance of a bad 
Emperor proving a good friend to the 

Church. Like Marcus Aurelius, Gallienus was a philo- 
sopher, but the philosophy of the son of Valerian made 
him neglectful of the duties of his station. In Gallienus 
we have the spectacle of a cynical trifler reigning at a 
time when a bold and active administrator was required 
to uphold the Empire in its distress. Gallienus issued 
edicts staying persecution, and addressed a rescript to 
“Dionysius, Pinna, Demetrius, and other bishops” in 
which he declared it unlawful to molest the Christians. 
In addition to this he granted the bishops permission 
to recover possession of the Christian cemeteries.* Thus 


Second Edict of 
Valerian. 


1. Mason, Diocletian Persecution, p. 113. Healey, Valerian Perse- 
cution, p. 162. 

2, ‘‘Caesariani autem, quicunque vel prius confessi fuerant vel nunc 
confessi fuerint confiscentur et vincti in Caesarianas possessiones descripti 
mittantur. Cyp., #/. 80. Cf. Euseb., 4. &. vil. 10, where he remarks 
on the number of Christians in Valerian’s household. 

3. Euseb., 4. #. vit. 13. In a rescript to Dionysius, Pinna and 
Demetrius and the other bishops, the Emperor gives orders drws dé rwv 
Torwy Tv Opnoxevoluwy adroxwpjowot. This may mean that the govern- 
ment officials are to leave the Christian places of worship. See note in Schaff 
and Wace’s WVicene and Fost-Nicene Fathers, in loco. 


CH. V.] TROUBLES OF THE TIME. 81 


Christianity became a ‘ veligio licita’ and the Church a 
corporation entitled by law to hold property. 

Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, draws a fearful 
picture of the miseries of the age. Every calamity 
seems to have fallen upon that city. Inundations of the 
Nile, encroachments of the sea, famines and pestilence, 
followed one another with fearful rapidity. The popu- 
lation diminished by nearly one half. It seemed to 
Dionysius as if the human race was in danger of exter- 
mination. The behaviour of the Christians at this time 
accounts for the ultimate triumph of the Faith over the 
Empire better than any of the less obvious reasons which. 
have been suggested. Whilst, during the pestilence, the 
heathen inhabitants in their panic deserted their nearest 
relations, the Christians attended on one another with 
the greatest assiduity, and many sacrificed their lives 
by sucking the virus out of the plague-spots of others. 
A religion capable of inspiring such heroism could 
not fail to make a strong impression on the public 
mind. 

The effect of the legislation of Gallienus 
AD ora t375, in recognising the Church as a legally 
existing society is shewn by Aurelian’s 

attitude towards Christianity. The Emperor had no 
sympathy with the believers. He was a devoted wor- 
shipper of the Sun-god, and he is believed to have 
meditated a persecution at the end of his reign. Never- 
theless when the bishops appealed to him about the 
deposition of Paul of Samosata, Aurelian decided that 
the buildings belonging to the church of Antioch should 
be given up to those whom the Christian bishops of 
Italy and Rome should appoint.?’ Although the Emperor 
may have been influenced in pronouncing this decision 
by the fact that Paul was a friend of the fallen Zenobia, 
he clearly recognises the right of the Christians to hold 


property. 


1. Euseb., 4.2. vii. 21, 22. 

2. Euseb., #.Z. vil. 30. Aurelian ordered the church of Antioch 
to be given ‘to those to whom the bishops of Italy and of the city of 
Rome should adjudge it’. 


82 GROWTH OF THE CHURCH. (cH. v. 


The immediate successors of Aurelian 
AD. 275276, did not interfere with the Church, and we 
Probus, | may pass by their reigns without comment, 
pty eet! following Eusebius, who says nothing of 
A.D. 282288, the period between the death of Aurelian 
Carinus and the accession of Diocletian. ‘The long 
AD 2a 984, peace which the Church had enjoyed had 
been very favourable to her progress in 
mere numbers; as it was no longer a breach of the law to 
become a Christian, the Church having ceased to be an 
illegal association by being legally recognised as a 
corporation. Before Gallienus the emperors who had 
not been persecutors had connived at a violation of the 
law ; but after that prince had issued his edict, it had 
become illegal to molest the Christians. It is therefore 
necessary to examine with care how it was that towards 
the close of the reign of Diocletian the Church was 
assailed by a persecution which, both in duration and 
severity, threw all earlier ones into the shade. 
The Emperor Carus died suddenly in 
Accession of his tent on an expedition against the 
A.D. 284. Persians. ‘The cause of his death remains 
a mystery. A terrible storm broke over 
the Roman camp, and it was suddenly announced that . 
the Emperor was dead.' He was succeeded by his two 
sons, Carinus, who was living in idle luxury at Rome, 
and Numerian, who was with the army. The latter 
died—murdered, it is said, by his father-in-law Arrius 
Aper, the praetorian prefect. His death was concealed 
for some time, and Aper commanded the army in the 
name of his deceased son-in-law, who was supposed to 
be ill. As soon as the army discovered that their 
emperor was dead, a council was held, and Diocletian, 
the chief of the imperial body-guard, ascended the 
tribunal, before which Aper was brought in chains. 
His trial was of the simplest description. Without 
entering into any investigation, which might have impli- 
cated others and perhaps himself, Diocletian, exclaiming 
“This is the murderer of Numerian,” plunged his sword 
into Aper’s breast. The troops saluted the judge and 


1. Gibbon, Decline and Fall, ch. xii. 


CH, V.] ' DIOCLETIAN. 83 


executioner of Aper as their emperor (Sept. 17, 284), 
and after a short war, Carinus was defeated and slain, 
and Diocletian became sole master of the Roman world. 


she ts: Diocletian was of servile origin, his 
‘Uipene: Sheree parents having been slaves in the family 
gustus, A.D. 286. of Anulinus, a Roman senator. The mere 
Galerius fact that he was able to rise to the 
and Constantius 4@ . 
Caesars, A.D.292, POSition of emperor proves that his talents 
were exceptional; but though he had 
served from his youth in the-army, Diocletian’s abilities 
were administrative rather than military. Like Au- 
gustus, his ambition was to infuse a new spirit of order 
into a disorganized world. With him a new era begins 
in the history of the Roman Empire. Till the accession 
of Diocletian the emperor had been, in theory at least, 
the first citizen in the Republic and the chief commander 
of her armies. The earlier emperors had flattered the 
Senate; and while they kept the power in their own 
hands, claimed to be no more than the princes of that 
body. In theory the emperor was appointed by the 
Senate, though practically the army both elected and 
deposed the master of the Roman world. Diocletian’s 
object was to do away with the interference of the one 
and the caprice and tyranny of the other. The former 
was divested of the last semblance of real authority by 
the Emperor’s fixing his residence no longer at Rome, but 
at Nicomedia, and making that city the centre of his 
government. To deprive the army of the power of 
imposing a master on the world was a more difficult 
task; but Diocletian undertook it with success. In the 
first place, by surrounding himself with all the ceremony 
of an oriental monarch he gave to the position of 
emperor a dignity in men’s eyes which it had previously 
lacked. By this means he rendered himself more un- 
approachable, and consequently less liable to the danger 
of assassination, than the purely military emperors had 
been since the time of Gallienus. But he made still 
better provision for his own safety and the stability of 
his government, by removing the chief temptation to 
rebel. As the Empire had too long been the prey of 
military adventurers, Diocletian made it no longer possible 


F2 


84 RE-ORGANIZATION OF THE EMPIRE. [cu.v. 


for a mutinous officer to rise to the throne by the murder 
of a master who had usually no one to succeed him but 
young children, or youths inexperienced in affairs. In 
A.D. 286 ‘Diocletian raised Maximian, his old com- 
panion in arms, to the rank of Augustus, giving him the 
command of the West, but reserving the East for himself. 
Six years later, in A.D. 292, two younger men were 
appointed with the inferior rank of Caesar, to assist 
Diocletian and Maximian in the administration and 
defence of the Empire. The former chose Galerius as 
his own colleague, while Constantius became Caesar 
under Maximian. The two Augusti gave their daughters 
to the Caesars and promised to resign the Empire to 
them when they should have reigned twenty years.! 3 
Yhis policy was completely successful, at least so 
long as Diocletian ruled. The Caesars treated the 
Augusti with respect, and Maximian joined with them 
in revering Diocletian as their common benefactor. We 
cannot fail to admire the wisdom that prompted the 
whole arrangement. ‘The active work of defending the 
frontiers was given to the younger men. To Constantius 
were assigned Gaul, Spain, and Britain; to Galerius the 
Illyrian provinces. Maximian, a rough soldier, was 
associated with Constantius, a man of education and 
humanity; whilst Galerius, who possessed even greater 
military capacity than Maximian, acted as Caesar to the 
more pacific and statesmanlike Diocletian.’ 
The Christian Church was to all 
che Christians appearance both secure and prosperous. 
She had outlived the age of calumny and 


1. Gibbon, Decline and Fall, ch. xiii. Mason, Persecution of Diocletian, 
ch. i. Firth, Cosstantine, p. 43. 

2. The marriage relationships of the Augusti and Caesars are as 
follows : 


Maximian ' Diocletian 
2 m. 
. Prisca 
Theodora tatep: daughter) Maxentius Fausta 

mM. m. Valeria 

Coiistantiug (@. 306) adaughterof Constantine mM. 
Galerius Galerius 
Constantine | (@. 311) 


son of Constantius 
by Helena 


Pe a 


CH. v) CHRISTIANITY IN THE PALACE, 85 


had long enjoyed the respect of both Greeks and bar- 
barians.’. As usual, the imperial palace was a strong- 
hold of Christianity; Diocletian’s wife Prisca and his 
daughter Valeria being open professors of the Faith.? 
Dorotheus and Gorgonius, the most influential of Dio- 
cletian’s chamberlains, were Christians.? Theonas the 
bishop of Alexandria wrote to Lucian the prepositus 
cubicularum on the subject of what the duty of a 
Christian would be if he were appointed librarian to 
Diocletian.* Churches were rising everywhere and 
great numbers were being converted to the Faith. This 
state of things continued for no less than eighteen years 
after the accession of Diocletian, and did not cease till 
the abdication of the great Emperor was drawing 
on apace. 
Signs were not wanting that the 
ee ar Te peace enjoyed by the Christians was 
the Christians. mot destined to endure. Isolated cases 
of persecution were from time to time 
manifesting themselves, especially in the army. Here 
and there a soldier suffered death for the Faith. One 
general called Veturius ordered his soldiers to abjure 
Christianity on pain of military degradation. Lactantius 
records that when Diocletian was at Antioch he con- 
sulted the omens, and that the exta of the victims 
exhibited none of the usual signs. The master of the 
soothsayers declared that profane persons were present 
and had prevented an answer being given by the gods. 
Diocletian ordered all who were present to sacrifice, 
but nothing further followed. Possibly this happened 
during the Persian war, but the incident may have 
been only a type of what frequently occurred.’ 


1. Euseb., 4.2. vill. 1. 

2. Lactantius, Mort. Pers. c. 15.—‘Sacrificio pollui coegit’ are the 
words used by Diocletian in forcing these ladies to sacrifice. 

2., Kuseb,, AZ. £. soc. cit. 

4. This letter is preserved in Routh’s Religuiae Sacrae. Mason, 
in his Persecution of Diocletian, gives a translation of it. 

5. Euseb., H. Z. vill. 4. oraviws rovrwy eis rou kal devrepos. 

6. Mason, Persecution of Diocletian, p. 41. Lactantius, Mort. 
aves. ©. 1D. 

7. Milman, Ast. Christ., vol. 11., p. 214, 


86 HOSTILITY TO CHRISTIANS. [cH. v. 


: With the rise of the Neo-Platonists 
Enemies of the of Alexandria, headed by Porphyry, the 
bitterest of literary opponents of Chris- 
tianity, who died about the time of Diocletian’s 
abdication, a sort of revival had taken place among 
the worshippers of the ancient gods. The new school 
sought to explain the ancient superstitions by allegories, 
and mingled the practice of magic with the study of 
philosophy. They attacked the Christians, as Gibbon 
says, with all the fury of civil war, the most active 
persecutors being the philosophers MHierocles and 
Theotecnus.! The Emperor Galerius was exactly the 
sort of man to be influenced by such representations 
as theirs, being by birth an ignorant peasant, the son 
of an intensely superstitious mother, and himself 
naturally prone to cruelty against the Christians, 
whose presence in the army was also very distasteful 
to him. 
"use It was not till 302-3 that a deliberate 
Diocletian attempt was made to induce Diocletian 
persuaded to : 
persecute. | to order a persecution. The old Emperor 
foresaw that to suppress Christianity was 
no easy task, and he hesitated to molest a numerous 
body of men, who had not only the prescriptive right to 
exist which more than forty years impunity might 
reasonably confer, but also the edicts of Gallienus in 
their favour. Galerius, however, pressed his colleague 
to consent, and at last persuaded Diocletian, against his 
better judgment, to allow Christianity to be attacked 
provided it was done without loss of life? — 


1. SeeGibbon, Decline and Fall, ch. xvi.(end). Mason, of. czt., p. 58. 
Dr. Mason considers that Theotecnus was the author of the forged Acts of 
Pilate, which Maximin Daza ordered to be taught in the schools. 


2. In a short appendix to his Translation of the Church History of 
Eusebius (Schaff and Wace, Wicene and Post-Nicene Fathers) Dr. McGiffert 
discusses the reasons Galerius had for desiring Diocletian to persecute the 
Christians. He dismisses the idea that he was actuated by religious 
motives, and suggests that the Christians in the palace of Diocletian were 
engaged in a scheme to induce that emperor to name a successor less hostile 
to the Christians than Galerius. This, he considers, accounts for the 
severity with which Diocletian treated his own Christian dependents. The 
following weighty words suggest a probable motive for Diocletian’s 


CH. V.] THE EDICTS. 87 


: The first edict was based on the edict 
en og eos. of Valerian, but with a few striking 
‘ differences. The penalty of death was 
not mentioned by Diocletian, nor were ladies punishable 
under its provisions. The law of Diocletian falls into 
three heads: (1) churches are to be abolished, (2) all 
Christian writings to be destroyed, (3) all persons who 
profess Christianity rendered infames and incapable of 
holding rank and property, free men degraded to the 
position of slaves. This edict was torn down by a 
Christian of Nicomedia, named George, who paid the 
penalty of his rash act by a cruel death.” 
A fire broke out in the palace at 
amano fs Sane et Nicomedia; Galerius accused the Chris- 
tians, and the slaves of the imperial 
household were tortured in order to discover the 
culprits. A few days after this a second fire broke 
out. Galerius declared his life to be in danger, and 
left the city. The Christians in the imperial house- 
hold were cruelly tortured; the wife and daughter of 
Diocletian were forced to sacrifice; the chamberlains 
Dorotheus and Gorgonius together with the bishop 
of Nicomedia suffered death.2 Although innocent of 
causing the fires, the Christians were the chief objects 
of Diocletian’s suspicions, and as the East was in a 
state of insurrection at the time, the Emperor felt 


continuing the persecution: ‘‘It had become an earnest matter with Dio- 
cletian, and he was beginning to feel—as he had never occasion to feel 
before—that a society within the Empire whose claims were looked up to 
as higher than those of the State itself, and duty to which demanded, in 
case of disagreement between it and the State, insubordination and even 
treason towards the latter, was too dangerous an institution to tolerate 
longer, however harmless it might be under ordinary circumstances.” 
M. Gaston Boissier (La Fin du Paganisme, p. 15) considers Diocletian 
primarily responsible for the persecution, and remarks on the Emperor’s 
policy of proclaiming himself an incarnation of Jupiter by assuming the 
title of Jovius. 

1. Mason, Persecution of Diocletian, p. 117. 

2. Lactantius (ort. Pers. c. 13) censures the deed; Eusebius (4. Z. 
VIII. 5) praises it. Dr. Mason thinks that this injudicious gentleman may 
be identified with St. George of England. 

So Eusebius #. £. vil. 6. Dr. Mason thinks that Anthimus, 
bishop of Nicomedia, suffered under Maximin. (p. 324.) 


838 PENALTY OF DEATH INFLICTED. [CH. V. 


that active measures against the Church would have 
to be taken to prevent the new Christian kingdom of 
Armenia countenancing a rising of the faithful. A 
second edict was put forth, ordering the arrest of all 
the clergy. : 
, : When Diocletian had completed the 
Dera eats, twentieth year of his reign a general 
amnesty was proclaimed. The Christian 
clergy however were not to be set free till they recanted, 
and torture was to be employed, if necessary, to induce 
them to sacrifice. The prisons emptied rapidly, either 
because a large number of the clergy did not like the — 
idea of torture, or because the governors of the prisons 
connived at their obtaining their liberty without 
sacrificing. 
In the spring of a.p. 304, Diocletian 
Dhol Edict. fell seriously ill, having apparently lost 
his reason for a time. He had steadily 
resisted the imposition of the death penalty for Chris- 
tianity. Maximian and the Roman Senate resolved, 
now that the great Emperor was politically dead, 
to persecute in earnest. An edict was accordingly 
issued by the Western Emperor ordering the Christians 
to be punished with death.? 
Diocletian, recovered from his sickness, 
piocletian and in accordance with his promise, laid 
aximian abdi- ; , tHT ‘ 
cate, May 1,305. down his authority and retired into 
private life, forcing Maximian to do 
the same. Galerius persuaded Diocletian to accept 
two of his nominees as Caesars in place of Maximian’s 
son Maxentius and Constantine the son of Constantius. 
Accordingly Galerius became Augustus, with his nephew 
Maximin Daza as Caesar, and Severus was appointed 
Caesar under Constantius who was promoted to the 
rank of Augustus. 


1. Armenia was converted by Gregory the Illuminator, A.D. 302, and 
was consequently the first nation to accept the Christian faith. See below, 
Chapter xx. 

2. Mason, Persecution of Diocletian, pp. 212—216. This author 
hardly brings out clearly enough the anti-Christian feeling which probably 
animated the Senate. Eighty years later (in the reign of Theodosius) 
Rome was still the stronghold of Paganism. 


CH. V.] CONSTANTIUS CAESAR. 89 


The Western provinces were destined to 
apt haere ed become the scene of civil war for several 
A.D. 305—811. years; but except in Africa, there was little 
persecution. In the East ‘the Christians 
had eight long years of persecution before them. Galerius, 
unrestrained by Diocletian, committed havoc in the 
Church at pleasure, and he was ably seconded by his 
nephew Maximin. The year 308 was a veritable ‘ Year 
of Terror’, and the severity of the trial lasted for two 
years longer. Affairs in the West were, however, tending 
to bring these horrors to an end. 
Bel : While the Christians in the East were 
aati ale tare enduring all the tortures which the malice 
death of Constan- Of their enemies was able to suggest, the 
tins, 806, to the Western provinces were witnessing thecom- 
pers 310: éPlete failure of Diocletian’s scheme. Con- 
stantius the recently appointed Augustus 
died on July 25, 306. His son Constantine, who was with 
Galerius at the time, made his way to Britain in great 
haste, maiming all the post-horses, says Lactantius, on 
the road to prevent capture. The army proclaimed him 
Emperor at York. Galerius gave a grudging assent to 
the choice of the soldiers by conferring on Constantine 
the title of Caesar, and raising Severus to the dignity 
of an Augustus. But the latter had not the power to 
support his position; Maxentius proclaimed himself 
emperor at Rome, his father Maximian hastened to his 
assistance, glad enough to leave his retirement for 
another chance of exercising authority. The generalship 
of the old man was sufficient to drive Severus to 
capitulate on the assurance that his life should be 
spared. The conquered emperor was allowed to kill 
himself by opening his veins.!. The usurpers in Italy 
hastened to secure the alliance of Constantine, who 
was equally apprehensive of the designs of Galerius. 
Maximian gave his daughter Fausta to Constantine, 
thereby securing at least his neutrality in case Galerius 
should invade Italy. The expedition of Galerius resulted 
in failure, and on his return to the East he raised 
Licinius to the purple vacated by Severus, giving him 


1. Gibbon, Decline and Fall, ch. xiv. 


90 SIX EMPERORS, __ (cH. v. 


the command over the provinces of Illyricum. This 
caused Maximin to complain that his claims were 
overlooked; and he extorted from Galerius the title of 
Augustus. The scheme of Diocletian had now com- 
pletely broken down ; but in spite of the prayers of both 
Maximian and Galerius he refused to leave his cabbages 
at Salona to mingle in the political disorders of the time. 
; There werenow (A.D.308)six emperors, 
<i Galerias’ three in the East and three in the West; 
East | Mexini, and the rest of this chapter willshewhow 
1C1N1ASs. . 
Constantine. these six were reduced to the two who 
West | Maximisa were not persecutors of the Christians. 
Maxentius. The aged Maximian, after quarrelling 
with his son Maxentius, was driven out of Italy, and 
took refuge first in Illyricum, and then in Constantine’s 
dominions in Gaul. He tried to dethrone his son-in-law, 
but Constantine was too prompt to allow his schemes 
to succeed. Maximian was driven to take refuge within 
the walls of Marseilles. The garrison refused to fight 
for him, and delivered him to Constantine. His justly 
offended son-in-law allowed Maximian the same privilege 
as had been granted by him to Severus, and the former 
colleague of Diocletian cone tted suicide.? ; 
; : In the following year the author o 
ee epee oe the persecution lay on his death-bed. 
i retiae waa Galerius suffered from the same loath- 
“8 cea ©“ some disease as had previously afflicted 
Herod, and of which Philip II. of Spain, the prince of 
persecutors, was destined to die. That unamiable 
African, Lactantius, gloats over the agonies of the 
dying Emperor,’ who at least made an effort to atone 
for his error in persecuting the Christians. He restored 


1. Mason, Persecution of Diocletian, p. 274. The memorable remark 
about the cabbages is recorded by Aurelius Victor, Z/. 39. 

2. Gibbon, Decline and Fall, ch. xiv. Lactantius (De Mortibus, c. 
30) says that several attempts on the life of Constantine were made by 
Maximian; but as no other historian records them, Gibbon (rightly, I 
think) ascribes them to the partial bigotry of the author of the Deaths of 
the Persecutors. 

3. Lact., Mortibus Pers. xxxiii. His description of Galerius’ suffer- 
ings is too terrible to record. Lactantius records his repentance as 
follows: ‘ Et haec facta sunt per annum perpetem; cum tandem malis 
domitus Deum coactus est confiteri; novi doloris urgentis per intervalla 
exclamat, se restituturum Dei templum, satisque pro scelere facturum.’ 


CH. V.] - DEATH OF GALERIUS. gt 


to the Christians their privileges by a proclamation, in 
which his own name appears with that of Constantine 
and Licinius. ‘This strange edict says that the original 
cause of the persecution was the factiousness of the 
Christians among themselves and their refusal to follow 
the good customs of their fathers, so that they neither 
worshipped the gods of Rome nor paid heed to the God 
of the Christians.’ As, however, many people had 
suffered greatly in the persecution, the Emperors in their 
clemency allowed the religion of Christ to be practised 
once more and the churches to be rebuilt. The edict 
concludes with a request for the Christians to remember 
the dying Emperor in their prayers.? 

The embers of persecution still 
smouldered in the East. Maximin Daza 
was not merely a political opponent of Christianity ; 
he anticipated the work of Julian in trying to create 
a Pagan organization similar to that of the Christian 
Church. He was assisted by Theotecnus, a philosopher 
of the Neo-Platonic school. Despite the edict, a per- 
secution was permitted, of which the most illustrious 
victims were Lucian, a presbyter of Antioch, the greatest 


Maximin Daza. 


1. Eusebius bears testimony to the divided condition of the Church 
before the outbreak of the persecution: ws dé éx ris él wdéov Edevdeplas 
éri xauvérynra Kal vwOplay Ta Kal’ Huds wernAdAdTTeETO, GAdwy ddrdots diagBov- 
oupéver Kal Svadordopouuévwy, Kal povovovxl nuav avray éavTois mpocoA- 
euotvrwy. K.T. A. (A. £. YUL. 1.) 

2. I cannot agree with those who say that Galerius intended to insult 
the Church by alluding to her divisions, nor do I consider his edict a 
mere piece of hypocrisy, Baur seems correct in his surmise that Galerius 
and his colleagues were desirous not so much of justifying the previous 
persecution, as their present policy of toleration. Christianity was hence- 
forth to be reckoned among the zustztuta veterum. It was to be tolerated 
so long as it remained what it had been from the first and did not degener- 
ate into any caprice of innovation. This was the true notion of a re/igzo 
licita. Baur, First Three Centuries, vol. 11., p. 217, Eng. transl. Speaking 
of Prisca and Valeria, “the wife and daughter of Diocletian, and their 
possible influence oveMGalerius to whom the latter had been married, Dr. 
Plumptre remarks that ‘‘ though he (Galerius) was the author of the whole 
scheme of persecution, the provinces over which he ruled presented hardly 
any of the instances of martyrdom, which were conspicuous in Egypt and 
Syria.” Dict. of Christian Biog., art. ‘Diocletian’, A monograph 
by Dr. Belser of Ellwangen on Galerius’ ‘Toleranz Edict’ (1890) 
explains that Galerius meant that the persecution had failed in its object 
of bringing the Christians back to the state religion and had only resulted 
in their worshipping nothing. I am indebted for this latter reference 
to Dr. Mason. 


92 CONSTANTINE AND MAXENTIUS, [CH. Vv. 


scholar of his age, and perhaps Anthimus of Nicomedia.! 
Maximin encouraged the cities to send deputations 
inviting him to persecute the Christians, and ordered the 
children to be instructed in the forged Acts of Pilate in 
order to prejudice the rising generation against the 
Faith. But Maximin’s days were numbered. The 
Christian kingdom of Armenia declared war against 
him; and his campaign was unsuccessful. Licinius also 
advanced to attack him. ‘Their forces met at Adrianople, 
and Maximin’s army was routed (April, 313). The 
defeated Emperor escaped to the East, and there published 
an edict of complete toleration to the Christians. But 
the hand of death was on him: whether he died of a 
painful disease or by poison is uncertain. 
Maxentius and Constantine remained 
naphtha gh at peace till 312, when Maxentius, who 
had rendered himself most unpopular by 
his misgovernment, laid claim to the provinces entrusted 
to Constantine and prepared to invade Gaul. Constan- 
tine, however, took the initiative, crossed the Alps, and 
attacked Maxentius. The war was decided by the 
battle of the Milvian bridge (a.p. 312). Constantine 
took the famous labarum? for his standard, proclaiming 
himself the champion of Christ. Maxentius was utterly 
defeated. Constantine’s victory was the triumph of the 
persecuted Church. In the same year Constantine pub- 
lished an edict allowing the Christians a certain freedom 
of worship, which in 313 was succeeded by the more 
celebrated ‘Edict of Milan’ granting complete liberty to 
the Christians.° 


1. But see above, p. 87. 

2. The labarum was formed thus A or £ The name was not new: 
both Tertullian and Minucius Felix speak of the Cantabrum, or according 
to some copies Ladarum, as a Roman standard, Eusebius in his Life of 
Constantine implies that the term had been long in use. Its derivation is 
obscure: probably it is formed from the Basque word for a standard ; the 
Greek Fathers write it Ad8wpov or Ad8oupov. Eusebius describes it fully in 
his Life of Constantine, bk. 1. ch. 31. A long spear, overlaid with gold, 
formed the figure of across by means of a transverse bar laid over it. On 
the top of the whole was fixed a wreath of gold and precious stones ; and 
within this the symbol of the Saviour’s name, two letters indicating the 
name of Christ by means of its initial characters,—the letter P being 
intersected by X in the centre (xiafoudvou 7d p kara Td pecalraroy), 

3- See below, chapter X11. 


Caer LER, VI. 


oe 


THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS. 


OF the history of the Church during the latter part 
of the first century and the first years of the second very 
little is known. Here and there a great name appears 
and some light is thrown on a particular part of the 
Church, but any attempt to write a continuous history 
of the period must fail from lack of materials. All that 
the historian can honestly do is to give a series of 
biographies of the principal Christians who were 
personally acquainted with the Apostles and a notice 
of the most important writings which have been 
preserved to us. 

Before entering upon the subject of 

“8 the sub-apostolic age it may be of 
advantage to the student to have before 
him the main points of that ingenious attempt to 
construct a history of the primitive Church made by 
the theological school of Titibingen. Baur and his 
followers acknowledge only five genuine documents in 
the New Testament, namely, J. and II. Corinthians, 
Galatians and Romans, and the Apocalypse. ‘They 
assume that the original disciples of our Lord were 
never able to emancipate themselves from Judaism, and 
that their followers were Jews first and Christians 
afterwards; and further that Gentile Christianity was 
entirely the work of St. Paul, who was regarded as an 
arch-deceiver by the Twelve and their disciples. Thus 
according to their theory there were two Churches of 
Christians, each bitterly opposed to the other. Ultimately 
the leaders of both parties saw the need of union, anda 
compromise was arranged. Peter and Paul took an 


The Tiibing 
Theory. 


1. The Tiibingen school of the nineteenth century are regarded as 
over-cautious by their successors in the twentieth. Dr. Van Manen 
(Encyclopaedia Biblica, art. ‘ Paul’) denies that the Apostle wrote any epistle 
at all! 


94 THE TUBINGEN THEORY. [cH. vr. 


equal rank as the founders of the church of Rome, both 
sides having made certain concessions in order to secure 
the unity of the Church. The New Testament, with 
the exception of the books already mentioned, was 
declared by this school to consist in part of the works 
of disciples of the Apostles which bear mainly on 
the controversy between Jews and Gentiles, and partly 
of forgeries in the names of the Apostles and their 
companions, some of which—the Gospel of St. John 
for example—are assigned to as late a date as the 
second half of the second century. According to this 
hypothesis our Lord was merely a moral teacher, 
very few of whose sayings have been preserved. The 
Jewish Christians are assumed not to have regarded 
Him as more than the great prophet of Israel, whilst 
the Pauline believers deified the memory not of the 
historical Jesus, but of an imaginary Christ. At last 
the Johannine school introduced into the Christian 
teaching the language of the Alexandrian philosophers, 
and declared our Lord to be the Divine Logos of Philo, 
or the Memra of the Targums.! The groundwork upon 
which these theories was based consists firstly of the 
supposed antagonism between St. Paul and the older 
Apostles, especially St. James. In the New Testament 
we find frequent indications that the supposed annihila- 
tion of Judaism in St. Paul’s system was looked on 
with some suspicion by the Church at Jerusalem over 
which St. James presided. We also learn that St. Paul 
was pursued by the hatred of the Judaizing Christians, 
who thwarted his missionary labours on all possible 
occasions.2 The second point on which the divines 
of Tiibingen have constructed their theory is the pro- 
gressive character of the Christology of the New 
Testament. They regard the Apocalypse as a Jewish 
writing which has assumed a Christian form under 
later hands; they notice the absence of Christian 
doctrine in St. James’s Epistle, and they think they 
recognise in the Christ of those Epistles of St. Paul 


1. Baur, First Three Centuries of the Christian Church 
2. Acts xxi. 18 foll. 
3: Il Cor. Xi. Gal. li. 4. Phil. lii, 2. 


CH, VI.] Bis FAUL AND SI, JAMES, 95 


which they accept, a more human figure than the 


Heavenly Being above all rule, authority and power, 
in the Epistles assigned by them to His later disciples. 
But the keystone of the entire theory is found in the 
so-called Clementine Homilies and Recognitions, which 
appeared during the second century. In these writings 
St. James is represented as the Head of the Christian 
Church and St. Peter as his delegate. The enemy of 
all truth is said to be Simon Magus, but it is evident 
that this is merely a pseudonym under which the writer 
disguises his attack on St. Paul.! 

Apart from all purely theological questions, the 
whole theory was open to grave objections on purely 
critical grounds, and has been practically abandoned. 
The New Testament, it is true, represents St. Paul as 
occupying a different standpoint from that of St. James 
in regard to the question of the conversion of the 
Gentiles; but these two Apostles meet on friendly 
terms at Jerusalem, and it is by no means certain 
that St. James’s denunciation of faith without works 
is aimed at St. Paul’s doctrine of justification by faith. 
In the former, faith is the acquiescence in dogma 
(wictevers OTL els oO Oeos); in the latter, faith is that 
which draws man to God (iotis eis Oéov). St. James, 
when he says that “ pure religion and undefiled before 
God and the Father is this, to visit the fatherless 
and widows in their affliction and to keep oneself 
unspotted from the world.” means by works, acts of 
mercy. In St. Paul’s Epistles the “ works of the Law” 
are condemned: that which St. James commends as 
‘works’ being called the fruit of the Spirit.? Nor 


1. Lightfoot, Galatians, 340 foll. Dissertation ‘St. Paul and the 
Three.’ 

2. St. Jamesii. 19. St. Jamesi. 27. Gal. v.22. The relation of 
the Epistle of St. James to those of St. Paul must always be a subject of 
dispute. J. B. Mayor in his Commentary on St. James considers that the 
Epistle was written before St. Paul formulated his doctrine of faith in 
Romans. Hort in denying this says ‘‘ It seems more natural to suppose 
that a misuse or misunderstanding of St. Paul’s teaching on the part of 
others gave rise to St. James’s carefully guarded language” ; and again, 
‘‘ Unlike as it is on the surface to that of the other books of the New 
Testament, it chiefly illustrates Judaistic Christianity by total freedom 
from it. We find not a word breathing the spirit which chafed at St. 
Paul’s Gospel to the Gentiles.” Judazstie Christianity, Lecture VIII. 


96 EARLY RECOGNITION OF NEW TESTAMENT. [cu. v1. 


will the hypothesis that the greater part of the New 
Testament was written in the second century bear 
the test of criticism. Without entering into a dis- 
cussion of the Canon, it is sufficient for the present 
purpose to remark that nearly every important New 
‘Testament scripture is attested by respectable evidence 
as early as a.D. 180,' that is to say, within a century 
of the composition of the earliest. The absence of any 

1. The subjoined table, compiled chiefly from Bp. Westcott’s History of 


the Canon of the New Testament, may be of use to the reader. I have 
omitted those Epistles of St. Paul universally acknowledged to be genuine. 


Name of Book. 


St. Matthew 
St. Mark 
S4. Luke 


St. Johnt 
Aats of the Apostles 
' Ephesians 


Colossians 
Philippians 

1 Thessalonians 
11 Thessalonians 


Pastoral Epistles 
Hebrews 
James 


I Peter 
II Peter 


I John 
1I 111, John 
Jude 


Apocalypse 


* The Muratorian Fragment is dated later by some scholars. 


Earliest direct allusions 
or quotations. 


Papias, A.D. 120 

Papias, A.D. 120 

Muratorian Frag., A.D. 
170* 


Irenaeus, A.D. 180 

Muratorian Frag. 

Clement of Rome, A.D. 
96 

Justin Martyr, A.D. 140 

Polycarp, (@.) A.D. 156 

Justin Martyr, A.D. 140 

Dionsyius of Corinth, 
A.De I71 

Clement of Rome, (I 
Tim. ) 

Clement of Rome, A.D. 


9 
Clement of Rome 
Polycarp , 
No evidence of value 


Polycarp and Papias 

No early evidence 

Clement of Alexandria, 
A.D. 190 

Papias, A.D. 120 


as Historical Documents, Pt. 1., p. 247 n. 


+ Bp. Westcott, Hzst. of the Canon, pp. 35, 
Basilides, &c.) bear testimony to the antiquity of 


gy 


Commentary is the work of the Gnostic Heracleon, 


Earliest indirect evidence 
and Remarks. 


Ep.Barn. (TheDidache) 


Marcion, A.D. 140, ac- 
cepted no other Gos- 
pel 

Ignatius, Papias, &c. 

Polycarp, (d.) A.D. 156 


Polycarp, (11 Tim.) 


Tts antiquity . certain, 
not-so its authorship 


Possible traces ofa know- 
ledge of the Epistle 
in Clement of Rome 


Muratorian Frag. 
Muratorian Frag. 


Stanton, The Gospels 


The early hasetion (Ophites, 
ohn’s Gospel, and the earliest 


| a a i fe 


CH. v1] EPISTLE OF BARNABAS. 97 


hint by an early writer of the reconciliation of the 
Jewish and Christian Churches is a further objection 
to a theory in which we are asked to believe that two 
bodies of Christians, divided, not by a question of dogma, 
but on one which affected the daily hfe of man, agreed 
to sink their differences so completely that hardly a 
trace of the controversy survived its extinction. 
ie An epistle has been preserved which has 
of Potts, been attributed to the apostle Barnabas. 
. The concurrence of early testimony in 
favour of its authenticity is exceptionally strong. 
Clement of Alexandria has no hesitation in ascribing 
the epistle to Barnabas. Origen in his treatise against 
Celsus calls it ‘the Catholic epistle of Barnabas’. 
Eusebius considers it the work of the Apostle, though 
he does not accept it as canonical. Jerome classes it 
among the apocryphal writings, and yet appears to 
consider it the work of St. Barnabas.? It is found in the 
Codex Sinaiticus with the books of the New Testament. 
This evidence, which in the opinion of many would 
be sufficient to establish the authenticity of any book in 
the New Testament, is greatly weakened by the contents 
of the Epistle itself. It abounds in foolish and trivial 
allegories, which make it hard to believe that it could 
have been written by St. Barnabas, the ‘son of con- 
solation’. ‘The institution of circumcision is an example 


1. Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 11. 7, 35, &c.3 Origen adv. 
Celsum, bk. 1. ch. Ixiii. ; Euseb., 4H. £. 111. 25 (4); vi. 13 (6), 14; Hier- 
onym., de Vir. Jll., c. 6. Nearly all the testimony in favour of the 
Epistle is Alexandrian. Eusebius is speaking of Clement of Alexandria as 
a student of Scripture, and the Epistle of Barnabas is mentioned in con- 
nection with the Epistle to the Hebrews and those of Clement and Jude. 
Modern attempts to date this Epistle are based on two passages. (1) ch. 4: 
‘<Ten kings shall reign upon earth, and. after them shall arise a little king 
who shall bring low three of the kings under one.” No satisfactory 
enumeration of the Caesars can fix this date, which Weizsacker places 
between A.D. 70—79, Hilgenfeld a.D. 96—98, and Volkmar A.D. 119—132. 
(2) The interpretation given to Isaiah xlix. 17 in ch. 16, that the de- 
stroyers of the Temple should rebuild it, which thing, says the Epistle, is 
now ‘coming to pass’, This is thought to be an allusion to a supposed 


‘design of Hadrian to rebuild the Temple. Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, 


p- 241. Dr. Stanton (Zhe Gospels as Historical Documents, vol. 1., p. 33) 
thinks that Barz. 16 seems to fix the date as A.D. 130. In the Epistle 
we have the first example of a saying of our Lord’s being quoted ag 
*Scripture’, ‘There be many called, but few chosen.” (ch. 4.) 


G 


98 ALLEGORICAL TREATMENT OF SCRIPTURE. [cH. Vi. 


of this writer’s painful habit of dealing with Scripture: 
“Understand, therefore, children, these things more 
fully; that Abraham, who was the first that brought in 
circumcision, looking forward in the spirit to Jesus, 
circumcised having received the mystery of ‘Three 
Letters. For the Scripture says that Abraham circum- 
cised three hundred and eighteen men of his house. But 
what, therefore, was the mystery that was made known 
unto him? Mark first the eighteen, and then the three 
hundred. For the numeral letters of ten and eight 
are | H. And these denote Jesus. And because the 
cross was that by which we were to find grace, therefore 
he adds three hundred, the note of which is T, 
Wherefore by two letters he signified Jesus, and by the 
third, His cross. He who has put the engrafted gift of 
His doctrine within us, knows that I never taught 
to anyone a more certain truth; but I trust that ye are 
worthy of it.” Again in speaking of clean and unclean 
beasts, he says, “But he adds, ‘Neither shalt thou eat 
of the hare.’ To what end? To signify this to us: 
Thou shalt not be an adulterer: nor liken thyself to such 
persons. For the hare every year multiplies the places of 
its conception ; and as many years as it lives so many it 
has. ‘Neither shalt thou eat of the hyaena.’ That is, 
again, Be not an adulterer, nor a corrupter of others; 
neither be like to such. And wherefore so? Because 
that creature every year changes its kind, and is 
sometimes male and sometimes female.” Again he 
argues, “ But why might the Jews eat those that clave - 
the hoof? Because the righteous liveth in this present 
world but his expectation is fixed upon the other.”? But 
despite the feeling of dislike with which these tiresome 
allegories inspire a modern reader, it is well to remember 
that, in the first place, everything written even by an 
Apostle is not for that reason inspired, and the Church 
never allowed the Epistle to be reckoned among her 
canonical books. In the second place, it must not be 
forgotten that the recognised method of interpreting the 
Scriptures among Jews and Christians of the age was to 


1, £p. Barn., ch. 9. 2. Jbid., ch. 10. 


CH. VI.]} PURPOSE OF EPISTLE OF BARNABAS. 99 


treat it allegorically, as Philo had done a little earlier, 
as St. Paul was frequently in the habit of doing, and as 
Clement and Origen did at a later period almost as 
extensively as the author of this Epistle. Lastly, the 
Epistle was written soon after the siege of Jerusalem, to 
shew the Jewish Christians that the Temple which had 
just been destroyed and the Law of Moses were mere 
shadows of the dispensation of Christ; and this method 
of reasoning, which is so distasteful to us, has ever 
had a great fascination for the Jewish mind, and may 
have supplied many arguments, which at the time were 
considered convincing by those who heard or read them. 
The Epistle of Barnabas may consequently have been 
written to serve a temporary purpose, and this may 
account for its marked inferiority to any book in the 
New Testament, which the Spirit of God destined for 
all time. 

Justice demands that we should not ignore the fact 
that the Epistle of Barnabas contains many passages of 
considerable beauty. ‘‘Do not” we read “ withdraw 
yourselves from others as if you were already justified ; 
but coming all together into one place, enquire what is 
agreeable to and profitable for the beloved of God. For 
the Scripture says, ‘Woe unto them that are wise in 
their own eyes and prudent in their own sight.’ Let 
us become spiritual, a perfect temple to God. As much 
as in us lies, let us meditate upon the fear of God; and 
strive to the utmost of our power to keep His command- 
ments, that we may rejoice in His righteous judgments.” 
Speaking of the spiritual temple the author says, “‘ Let 
us enquire therefore whether there be any temple of 
God......I find therefore that there is a temple. But 
how shall it be built in the name of the Lord? I 
will shew you. Before that we believed in God, the 
habitation of our heart was feeble and corruptible, as a 
temple truly built with hands....But it shall be built in 
the name of the Lord. Consider how that the temple of 
the Lord shall be very gloriously built; and by what 
means that shall be, learn...... Wherefore God truly 
dwells in our house, that is, in us. But how does He 


1. Lp. Barn., ch. 4. 


100 BARNABAS AND. CANONICAL SCRIPTURE. [cH. VL 


dwell in us? The word of His faith, the calling of His 
promise, the wisdom of His righteous judgments, the 
commands of His doctrine. He Himself prophesies within 
us; He Himself dwelleth within us, and openeth to us, 
who were in bondage of death, the gate of our temple, 
that is, the mouth of wisdom; having given repentance 
unto us; and by this means He hath brought us to be an 
incorruptible temple.’””? 

The Epistle of Barnabas is valuable as shewing the 
manner in which a Christian.teacher wrote shortly after 
the destruction of Jerusalem, and also as proving the 
care with which the Christians sought to discriminate 
between inspired and uninspired writings. The great 
name of St. Barnabas, that most amiable of apostles, 
was not sufficient to make Christians acknowledge his 
Epistle as canonical; whilst even those who denied the 
Pauline authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews 
acknowledged its authority. It marks however an im- 
portant stage in the relations of Judaism and Christi- 
anity. The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews hints 
that the time is coming when Christians must part 
company with the Jews, and in Barnabas we see that 
this has come to pass. The contrast between the two 
letters is well seen in the following weighty judgment 
concerning ‘Barnabas’. “The Epistle of Barnabas, 
whenever it may have been written, is a striking example 
of what the Apostolic teaching about the old Covenant 
was not. Ignoring the progressive method of God’s 
dealings with mankind, it treats the Jewish practices 
and beliefs of old time as having always been mere 
errors, and thus makes the Old Testament no more 
than a fantastic forestatement of the New Testament.’’? 

; The Epistle of Barnabas concludes 

The Teaching with a description of the two ways of 
Twelve Apostles. light and darkness, which is also found 
in the recently discovered Teaching of 

the Twelve Apostles. This little treatise is quoted by 
Clement of Alexandria in 201 a.p., and by Athanasiusin © 
the fourth century. Eusebius mentions it by name 


1. Zp. Barn., ch. 16. 
2. Hort, Judatstic Christianity, p. 19%. 


g + om, 
Pe ane 
a Ras. 
= Se 


CH. VI.] ANCIENT TESTIMONY TO THE DI/DACHE. I0! 


among the spurious writings (vd@a) used by the Church, 
together with the so-called Epistle of Barnabas... Atha- 
nasius also speaks of it, when he mentions the “books 
not canonical but appointed by the Fathers to be read 
to those just coming to us,” i.e. to the catechumens. 
After the sixth century it is not mentioned by any writer 
except Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople (died 
A.D. 828), who names it among the apocryphal books of 
the New Testament. In 1873, Bryennius, then Metro- 
politan of Serres in Macedonia, and afterwards of 
Nicomedia in Asia Minor, discovered in the Monastery 
of Phanar in Constantinople, a MS. book called Synopsis 
of the Old and New Testaments by St. John Chrysostom. 
On examination it was found to contain, besides the 
Synopsis before mentioned, the Epistle of Barnabas, 
1. and 11. Clement, the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, 
the Epistle of Mary of Cassobola to Ignatius, and the 
twelve Epistles of Ignatius. Archbishop Bryennius 
published the Epistles of Clement in 1875, and in 1883 
he edited the Teaching with prolegomena and notes. 
The date of the composition of the treatise is not known; 
but it is considered to be earlier than either Barnabas or 
Hermas, as the similarities of language between these 
writings and the Teaching betray a deviation from the 
original form of the Sayings. Hilgenfeld, however, assigns 
a comparatively late date to the treatise, on the ground 
that some expressions about the prophets have led him 
to suppose that its author was a Montanist. Dr. Stanton 
disputes this theory—and also that of Harnack that the 
Teaching emanated from some insignificant local Church 
about a.p. 160—because it seems to him to fail to account 
for the widespread influence of the book in early times.’ 
Nor is it decided whether it is the work of a Jewish o1 
Gentile Christian, though a strong case has been made 
out for the former view. But, whatever the date of the 
Teaching may be, it is of great value to the historian as 
shewing the character of a very primitive Christiar 
community. 


1. Euseb., Z. Z. ll. 25. epouévy. 
2. Athan., Festal Epistle, 39. 
3. Zhe Gospels as Historical Documents, vol. ¥., p. 30. 


102 CONTENTS OF THE TEACHING) «7 (cH. vis 


The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles has been not 
inaptly described as a sort of Church Catechism intensely 
Jewish! But although the writer regards things from 
the stand-point of a Jew he shews no hostility to the 
Gentiles, but, on the contrary, does his best to persuade his 
readers to abandon the Jewish Sabbath and also to 
change the weekly fast days to Wednesday and Friday. 
He speaks of those who follow the Jews in the observ- 
ance of the Sabbath and the days of fasting as hypo- 
crites.2, None the less the scruples of a Jew are shewn in 
the direction to baptize in living water in preference to 
all other, and in the very strong command to beware of 
things offered to idols, “for it is the service of dead 
gods.” The Christian community is depicted in a very 
primitive form. Baptism in the name of the Father, 
Son, and Holy Ghost, is enjoined. The Lord’s Prayer is 
directed to be said thrice a day. The influence of the 
Sermon on the Mount is distinctly marked. A form of 
thanksgiving at the Eucharist is ordered, of which none 
but baptized persons may partake.* Apostles and pro- 
phets from time to time visit the church, and are to be 
entertained for two nights. A prophet however is 
allowed, if he likes, to settle among the Christians, 
and he is to receive the first-fruits of the believers; 
“for they (the prophets) are your chief priests.” Bishops 
and deacons are ordered to be elected, and treated with 
respect. Strangers and wayfarers are to be entertained 
by the brethren, and if any desires to settle among them, 


r. Dr. C. Taylor, The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, with illus- 
trations from the Talmud. Prof. Rendel Harris, in his edition of the 
Teaching, has a chapter on ‘The Hebraisms of the: Zeachzng,’ p. 82 fol. 

2. Leaching, ch. viii.: ‘* But let not your fasts be with the hypo- 
crites ; for they fast on the second day of the week and on the fifth: but ye 
shall fast on the fourth day and the preparation.” 

3. Rainy, Ancient Catholic Church, p. 58. 

4. Teaching, ch. ix. : ‘* We thank Thee, our Father, for the holy vine 
of David Thy servant, which Thou hast made known to us through Jesus 
Thy servant ; to Thee be glory for ever. As concernimg the broken bread 
(rept 52 rob KXdopuaros) we thank Thee, our Father, for the life and 
knowledge which Thou hast made knewn to us through Jesus Thy servant ; 
to Thee be glory for eyer. Just as this broken bread was scattered over the 
hills and having been Ba thesan together became one, so let Thy Church be 
gathered together from the ends of the earth unto Thy kingdom ; for 
Thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever.”— 
Hitchcock and Brown’s Translation. 


a = 


ee a ee ke Tro 


CH. VI.] CLEMENT OF ROME, 103 


he may do so, provided he works for his living. The 

coming of Christ is very near. Three signs shall an- 

nounce it: a sign of a cross spread out in heaven, the 
voice of a trumpet, and the resurrection of the dead.! 

Giada ede We know but little of St. Clement, 

Rome. but the extreme importance of his name 

in the early legends of the Church shews 

how great an impression he must have made on the 

minds of his contemporaries. In the history of the first 


century he is second only to the greatest of the Apostles. 


His sole authentic writing is an epistle to the church of 
Corinth, written, according to Bp. Lightfoot, during the 
reign of Domitian. The (so-called) Second Epistle of 
Clement existed only in a fragment before the discovery 
by Archbishop Bryennius of the manuscript at Constan- 
tinople, and it now proves to be not a letter but an ancient 
homily of the second century. Clement seems from his 
authentic epistle to have been a man of a most catholic 
mind. He isa disciple of no particular school in the 
Church; he quotes the writings of St. Peter, St. Paul, 
and St. James with equal respect, and the general tone of 
his epistle would have been impossible, had the Jewish 
and Gentile Christians been at hopeless variance in 
Rome during the latter years of the first century. 

Origen identifies Clement with the person mentioned 
in St. Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians,? and his opinion 
is adopted by Eusebius? and the later ecclesiastical 
writers. But there are several reasons for thinking that 
Origen was misled by the similarity of the name, and 
that there was a Philippian as well as a Roman Christian 
called Clement. In the first place, Clement of Rome is 
traditionally connected with St. Peter, not with St. Paul. 
In the second, the date of Clement’s episcopate makes it 
improbable, though not impossible, that he was a fellow 
labourer with the Apostle at Philippi. Eusebius asserts 
that Clement died in the third year of Trajan (a.p. 100),* 

I. mp@rov onpetov éxmerdcews év ovpav@ Dr. Taylor shews that 
ch. xii. of Barnabas proves conclusively that the sign of the Cross is 
meant. In this chapter the writer speaks of the prefigurements of the 
Cross, and quotes Isaiah Ixv. 2, ‘‘I spread out my hands” (égewéraca ras 
Xelpds mov). 2. Phil. iv, 3. 

3. Euseb., &. &. 111. 4 (10). 

4 Euseb., Z. £. Ill. 34. 


104 WHO WAS CLEMENT? [cH. VE 


but as his name is mentioned in the Shepherd of Hermas,} 
which is not earlier than a.pD. 140, it is quite conceivable 
that he may have been alive as late as A.D. 110, or nearly 
fifty years after St. Paul wrote to the Philippians ; and 
in this case Clement would be an aged man even at 
the close of the first century.2, But although the above 
objections are by no means fatal to the identification of 
Clement of Rome with his namesake of Philippi, the 
name is so common that it is impossible to draw any 
inference from the fact of two persons being so called. 
Bp. Lightfoot points out that no less than five Clements 
are mentioned by Tacitus,’ and that the name occurs 
frequently among the dependents of the Flavian Em- 
perors* (Vespasian, Titus and Domitian). Before there- 
fore pronouncing the two Clements mentioned in the 
early days of Church history to be the same person it 
would be necessary to produce a very positive tradition 
to that effect. But Irenaeus, that great repository of 
Christian tradition, although he says that Clement of 
Rome was a disciple “‘who had seen the blessed Apostles 
and conferred with them, and had the doctrine of the 
Apostles yet sounding in his ears, and their traditions 
before his eyes,’*® yet gives no hint of his having been 
the fellow labourer of St. Paul at Philippi. 

A more plausible theory makes Clement of Rome 
the same as the consul Flavius Clemens, whose children 
had been designated by Domitian as his successors, and 
whose wife, Flavia Domitilla, is actually claimed by 
Eusebius as a sufferer for Christ.6 Flavius Clemens 
was put to death on the charge of atheism and Jewish 
manners, in the very year (A.D. 95) in which, according 
to some authorities, Clement bishop of Rome died. But — 
the silence of tradition militates against this theory, 


i. Hermas, Viscons 1. 4. 

2. Lightfoot, Zpzstle to Philippians, p. 168. 

3. Clemens Arretinus, Hzs¢. Iv. 68. Clemens Julius, Ama. 1. 23, 26, 
Clemens a slave of Postumius Agrippa, 4z. 11. 39. Clemens Salienus, 
‘49s. XV. 73. Clemens Suedius, A7sz. 1. 87. 

4. Lightfoot, St. Clement of Rome, App. p. 264. 

5. Irenaeus, Haer. ill. c. 3, § 2. 

6. Eusebius (2. #. m1. 18) calls her the zece of Flavius Clemens 
(€& ddedijs yeyorutay Pavlov KAnuevros). Bp. Lightfoot however thinks 
that there was only one Flavia Domitilla. (Pkz/ippians, p. 22.) 


CH. VI.] FIRST ROMAN BISHOPS. 105 


since it is scarcely conceivable that so important a per- 
sonage as the consul and cousin of the Emperor should 
have been bishop of Rome and that no record of the 
fact should have been preserved in the traditions of the 
Roman church. It is true that in the Recognitions 
Clement is asserted to have been a kinsman of the 
Emperor, but here Tiberius and not Domitian is meant. 

All that we really know of Clement is 
that he was one of the early bishops of 
Rome, but it is not quite certain what 
place he takes among the first popes. The first list of 
Roman bishops is that given by Irenaeus, who places 
them in the following order: ‘the blessed Apostles Peter 
and Paul, Linus, Anencletus, Clement.’ In a.p. 235 
Hippolytus drew up a list of bishops in which Clement 
is placed after Linus and before Cletus and Anencletus. 
This order is adopted in the Liberian catalogue of Popes 
which ends with the episcopate of Liberius, a.p. 354, and 
by most of the Latin Fathers. Jerome, though he adopts 
the arrangement of Irenaeus, maintains that Clement 
was ordained by St. Peter;? and it seems to have been 
an almost universal belief that Clement received his 
appointment direct from the chief of the twelve Apostles. 
According to the Apostolical Constitutions Linus was 
ordained by St. Paul, and Clement, on his death, by 
St. Peter;* Tertullian says that Clement was ordained 
by St. Peter‘ But a slight chonological difficulty 
makes us hesitate to accept this tradition. The latest 
date which we can assign to the death of St. Peter is 
A.D. 68, and this would make Clement preside over the 
church of Rome for more than thirty years, if Eusebius 
is correct in stating that he died in the third year of 
Trajan.° It is perhaps best to assume that the tradition 
rests on the statement of the alleged letter of Clement to 


The first Bishops 
of Rome.! 


1. The publication of the late Bp. Lightfoot’s Apostolic Fathers, 
Pt. 1., threw much fresh light on this subject, which will be discussed 
more fully in ch. x. 

2. Dict. Chr, Biog., vol. 1., Article ‘Clemens Romanus’. Irenaeus, 
Haer. il. § 3. 

3. <Apost. Comst., VII. 46. 

4. De Praescrip. Haeret.,c 32. §*Sicut Romanorum Clementem a 
Petro ordinatum.” 

5. .Euseb., #. &. Ill. 34. 


106 TWO PORTRAITS OF CLEMENT.  [cu. v1. 


S. James preserved in the Homilies. It is however a 
noteworthy fact that Clement’s name is always con- 
nected with that of St. Peter, notwithstanding the 
belief that he and the Clement in the Epistle to the 
Philippians are identical. When we turn to the 
Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians we see how 
impossible it is to reconcile his connection with St. 
Peter with the Tiibingen theory of the antagonism 
of the Petrine and Pauline Christian communities. 
We are able to derive hints as to the 
Clement as he is personality of Clement from his Epistle, 
iniis Epistle. although he makes no allusion to himself > 
and writes to the Corinthians in the name 
of the church of Rome. Bp. Lightfoot points out that 
the author of the letter has a very “thorough acquaintance 
with the Septuagint version of the Scriptures, and describes 
him as a man ‘“‘ whose mind was saturated with the 
knowledge of the Old Testament”; his language and 
style shew him to have been trained from his childhood 
in the knowledge of the Bible—in other words, he must 
have been either a Jew or the son of a proselyte. Jews 
were not uncommon among the slaves and retainers 
of the Flavian dynasty, and the bishop of Rome was 
probably a freedman of Flavius Clemens. If this is the 
case it is not difficult to account for the spread of 
Christian principles in the family of the consul. 
The Clement of the Recognitions is 
 Heccguitiong’? represented as the son of Faustinianus—a 
relative of Tiberius—and Mattidia; he 
had also twin brothers named Faustus and Faustinus. 
Mattidia was warned by a vision to leave Rome for 
ten years, so her husband sent her with her twin sons 
to Athens. Faustinianus, having no tidings of his 
absent wife, left Clement in Rome, and started himself 
to find her. He also disappeared, and Clement was 
left without a trace of his relations. Clement was 
converted to Christianity by Barnabas, after he had 
sought knowledge in all the schools of the Philosophers. 
He followed his master to Caesarea and made the 


1. Lightfoot, St. Clement 0, Rome, Appendix, p. 256. (1837.) 


CH. VI.] THE RECOGNITIONS. 107 


acquaintance of St. Peter. According to the Clemen- 
tine romance, this Apostle seems to have devoted 
himself to pursuing Simon Magus in order to refute 
his errors. Clement followed St. Peter, and found first 
his long-lost mother, and afterwards his two brothers, 
who proved to be two of the Apostle’s disciples. Their 
mother Mattidia was baptized, and the three brothers 
and St. Peter retired to bathe in the sea and to pray. 
A working man, who saw them at prayer, obtruded 
his opinion that such an exercise was useless because 
all things are governed by fate. He gives as an example 
that his own wife had been born under an horoscope 
which compelled her to commit adultery and end her 
days on water by foreign travel. Ofcourse the working 
man turns out to be the long-lost father, Faustinianus. 
He also is converted, and St. Peter, after refuting Simon 
Magus at Antioch, baptizes him.?} 
me Le te. Till the discovery of the Jerusalem 
Epistle ofClement, COdex by Bryennius, it was supposed 
that the only MS. of the two epistles 
of Clement was the fragment preserved in the Codex 
Alexandrinus. Besides this, a Syriac MS. of the New 
' Testament was purchased by the University of Cam- 
bridge from the collection of the late M. Jules Mohl 
in 1876, in which a translation of the two epistles 
was discovered.? Now that the second epistle is, by 
general consent, assigned to a date posterior to the 
death of Clement,’ there remains only one which can 
be attributed to him. This letter, in which the name 
of Clement does not appear, was addressed by the 
church of Rome to the church of Corinth, exhorting 
the latter to put an end to the factions which distracted 
the Corinthian Christians. It was sent by special dele- 
gates of the Roman church, named Claudius Ephebus, 
Valerius Bito, and Fortunatus, all of whom were elderly 


1. Dict. Christian Brog., Art. ‘Clementine Literature’, by Dr. 
Salmon. Recognitions, §§ vil and VIII. 
2. Lightfoot, S¢. Clement of Rome, Appendix, p. 303 foll. 
‘*Bryennius (p. pv6’) maintains that the homily is the work of none 
other than the famous bishop of Rome. This view however has nothing to 
recommend it, and has found no favour with others.”” Lightfoot, of, c7?., 


P. 313. 


108 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF CLEMENT. [cu. v1. 


men who had been Christians the greater part of their 
lives. It is possible that Fortunatus was himself a 
Corinthian, and he may be the same who is named 
in St. Paul’s First Epistle (xvi. 17).1 At any rate, 
Claudius Ephebus and Valerius Bito may have been 
Christians thirty years or so before, when the Apostles 
Peter and Paul were in Rome; and thus the epistle 
was written by a disciple of the Apostles, and brought 
to Corinth by two men who had been converted in 
apostolic times. The whole tone of the letter is char- 
acterised by its reasonable and conciliatory spirit, 
which is the more remarkable, when we remember 
that it was possibly written by a member of the Flavian 
household during the dreadful months which preceded 
the murder of Domitian, when not only the Christians, 
but the relatives of the tyrant themselves, were in 
expectation of becoming the victims of his cruelty.’ 
Another interesting feature in the Epistle of Clement 
is the knowledge which this Father shews of the writings 
of the Apostles, and the complete absence of every trace 
of party spirit. Clement has no desire to exalt St. Peter 
at the expense of St. Paul or the reverse.t The Roman 


1. Lightfoot, St. Clement of Rome, Appendix, p. 256. Clement says 
§ 65 (59 before the discovery of the rest of the Epistle) rods dé drerradpévous 
ap ynuav KrAavdcov “Ednfov cai Ovadréprov Birova ovv kai Poprovvarw év 
elpynvy meTa xapas év Taxa dvaréupare rpos nuas. In the newly discovered 
portion he says that they are dvdpas microvs kal cwdpovas awd vedryros 
dvacTpapévras Ews yijpous dudumrrtws év yycv. 

2. Clement of Rome, §§ 58 and 62, mera éxrévous émexetas. See 
Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, Pt. I1., vol. 1., p. 2. 

‘* The letter was probably written while the church was still at the 
mercy of the tyrant’s caprice, still uncertain when and where the next blow 
might fall..........Flavius Clemens was consul A.D. 95, and he appears to 
have suffered immediately after the close of the year. In September of 
the following year the tyrant himself was slain. The chief conspirator and 
assassin was one Stephanas, a freedman, the steward of Domitilla. He is 
even said to have struck the blow with the name of Flavius Clemens on his 
lips..........If this be so, the household of this earliest of Christian princes 
must have contained within its walls strange diversities of character. No 
greater contrast can be conceived to the ferocity and passion of those 
bloody scenes which accompanied the death of Domitian, than the singular 
gentleness and forbearance which distinguishes this letter throughout.” 
Lightfoot, Zpzstles of Clement, Appendix, p. 268. 

4. Bp. Westcott, Hest. of the Canon of the NewTest., p. 25. Clement, 
according to the Synopsis of historical evidence for the books of the 


CH. vI.} ITS RECEPTION BY THE CHURCH. 109 


church could not have been distracted by any serious 
schism between Petrine and Pauline Christians when 
it could allow a letter to be written in its name con- 
taining the following passage: “‘ Let us set before our 
eyes the good Apostles. There was Peter who by reason 
of unrighteous jealousy endured not one nor two but 
many labours, and thus having borne his testimony 
went to the appointed place of his glory. By reason 
of jealousy and strife Paul by his example pointed 
out the prize of patient endurance...... after having 
taught righteousness to the whole world, and having 
reached the furthest bounds of the west (€7ri To Tépyua Tis 
Svcews €AOwv).”} 

The Epistle of Clement was very highly valued 
in the primitive Church, and was publicly read not 
only at Corinth but elsewhere.’ For this reason it was 
attached to some MSS. of the New Testament, and in 
the Alexandrian MS. it occupies the same position, viz. 
after the Apocalypse, as the Epistle of Barnabas and the 
Shepherd of Hermas do in the older Codex Sinaiticus. 

i Besides the so-called second epistle 
panes fancy of Clement to the Corinthians, Clement 
Clement of Rome, has been falsely credited with two epistles 

on Virginity, an epistle to James the 
Lord’s brother, giving an account of his appointment 
by St. Peter to the See of Rome, and a second epistle 
to James, relating to the administration of the Eucharist 
and other matters. In the false Decretals (a.p. 829q— 
847) the two latter are enlarged and three additional 
letters are forged.® 


New Testament given by Bp, Westcott, shews himself acquainted with the 
Epistles of St. Paul to the Romans, 1 Corinthians, Galatians, and 1 Timothy, 
with the Epistle of St. James, and possibly with 11 Peter. ‘* His acquaint- 
ance with the Epistle to the Hebrews” says Bp. Westcott ‘is such as to 
shew that the language of the Epistle was transfused into Clement’s 
mind. 

1. Ep. ad Cor., Vv. 

2. Dionysius of Corinth, writing to the Roman Christians, A.D. 165— 
175, says: ‘‘ This day being the Lord’s day, we kept as a holy-day ; when 
we read your epistle, which we shall ever continue to read for our edifi- 
cation, as also the former epistle which you wrote us by Clement.” Euseb., 
H. E. iv, 23 (11); cf. 11. 16. See Bp. Lightfoot, Apzstles of St. Clement 
of Rome, pp. 3, 4, 9, for the early testimony in favour of the Epistle. 

3, Lightfoot, St. Clement of Rome, p. 14 foll. 


110 IGNATIUS THE MARTYR. |__| CH. VI. 


Of the greater part of the life of 


Tgnatius I ti ley littl 1 
martored) about. (gnatius we ow as little or even less 
( AD. 110. than we do of Clement of Rome. Even 


legend is comparatively silent as to his 
early history. In the Menaea for Dec. 20, Ignatius is said 
to have been the child whom our Lord took in His arms, 
but this seems to be merely an attempt to explain the 
surname Theophorus. It has been conjectured that he 
was a pagan in early life, and from his language, Bp. 
Lightfoot infers that his life had been stained by those 
sins, of which, as a heathen, he had probably taken no 
account at the time, but for which he reproached himself 
bitterly when he became a Christian.1 Tradition is 
unanimous in asserting that he was a hearer of the 
Apostles: Theodoret and Chrysostom say that he was 
ordained bishop of Antioch by St. Peter; whilst in the 
Apostolical Constitutions it is said that his predecessor 
Euodius was ordained by St. Peter, and Ignatius by St. 
Paul)? 


The only tradition preserved of the episcopate of 
Ignatius at Antioch is found in Socrates, a church 
historian of the fifth century, who tells us that Ignatius 
saw a vision of Angels praising the Holy Trinity in 
antiphonal hymns, and he left the fashion of this vision 
as a custom to the church at Antioch.° | 


At the close of his life all the obscurity that hangs 
over the early career of Ignatius is dispelled, and we are 
allowed for a time to see him as a very prominent figure 
in the history of the early Church. He was condemned 
at Antioch and was sent to Romie to be thrown to the 
beasts in the arena. But we have no trustworthy 
account of his trial and condemnation at Antioch, nor 


1. Ignat. ad. Rom. 9., éye 82 aloxtvoune € airdv AédyeoOa* ovde 
yap dkids elu Ov oxaros avTwr, kat éExrpwuat GAN HAénual Tis elvar, édy 
OQcod émcrbyw. The language is obviously suggested by 1 Cor. xv. 8, 9, 
and 1 Tim. i. 13. See Bp. Lightfoot’s notes. 

2, Apost. Const. VII. 46. 

3. Socrates, H. £, vi. 8. He also says of Ignatius that he associated 
with the Apostles themselves: és xal rois dwroorédas abrols cvvdiérpepev. 
Bp. Lightfoot suggests that the legend of the introduction of antiphonal 
chanting by Ignatius may be due to his language in 7rad/ians 5, Kom. 2, 
Eph. 4: Apostolic Fathers, part 11., vol. 1.5 p. 30. 


ae oe eee ae 
=) able 5 ine a ae ee 
Sg : 


cH. vi.) JOURNEY OF IGNATIUS. III 


can we trace the first part of his journey with any 
certainty. His figure only comes into the light when he 
has reached the heart of Asia Minor, where the road from 
the east bifurcates; the southerly route following the 
course of the river Meander to Ephesus, whilst the 
northerly goes to Smyrna by Philadelphia and Sardis. 

Ignatius was conducted by the northerly road, but a 
message was sent to Tralles and Magnesia in the valley 
of the Meander on the way to Ephesus, to say that the 
Saint would remain at Smyrna and be able to receive 
deputations from the Christian churches of Asia Minor.? 
Ephesus sent her bishop Onesimus, Burrhus a deacon, 
and three others; Magnesia sent Damas the bishop, two 
presbyters, and a deacon; and Tralles, being further 
away from Smyrna than the two other cities, only 
despatched her bishop, Polybius. 

During the sojourn at Smyrna Ignatius 
ignatins writes wrote a letter to each of the above- 
Msnymna, mentioned churches, and also one to the 

Roman Christians to entreat them not to 
seek by their ill-timed zeal to deprive him of the glory 
of martyrdom. He was allowed to see his friends, and 
was able to draw much strength and comfort from the 
society of Polycarp, the bishop of Smyrna, who was 
himself destined to die a martyr’s death. 

Although Ignatius was given considerable liberty 
for one in the position of a condemned criminal, he 
appears to have been treated with great brutality by 
the soldiers of his guard, whom he compares to ten 
leopards. It seems as though the greater fees the 
soldiers received from the Christians, the worse they 
behaved to the Saint,—no doubt in the hope of exacting 
larger gratuities.® 


1. There are two Greek Acts of Ignatius given in Bp. Lightfoot’s 
works, but neither the Roman nor Antiochene Acts (as they are termed) 
are considered genuine. 

2. Lightfoot, of. czt., p. 34. 

3. Ignat., ad. Rom. 5: évdedewévos Séxa Neomdpoas, 5 éoriv orpariwtiKdy 
vdyua, oi Kal evepyerovuevot xelpovs ylvovrat, The chapter is a very 
remarkable instance of Ignatius’ thirst for martyrdom. He concludes, 
**Come fire and cross and grapplings with wild beasts, wrenching of bones, 
hacking of limbs, crushing of my whole body, come cruel tortures of the 
devil to assail me. Only be it mine to attain Jesus Christ.” (Lightfoot’s Tr.) 


hes 


112 THE IGNATIAN LETTERS. (CH. VI. 


From Smyrna Ignatius was led to 
i bigpes diay otal Alexandria Troas, Here he wrote three 
Alexandria Troas, letters, to the churches of Philadelphia 
and Smyrna, which had entertained him, 
and also to Polycarp. The object he had in writing 
these letters was to entreat the Smyrnaeans and Phila- 
delphians to send delegates to exhort and comfort his 
own church at Antioch. We next hear of Ignatius at 
Philippi, where the Christians welcomed him, and two 
other martyrs, Zosimus and Rufus, who “like him” (to 
quote the words of Polycarp) “were entwined with 
saintly fetters, the diadems of the truly elect.”! After he 
had departed, the Philippians, as we learn from Poly- 
carp’s reply to them, begged the bishop of Smyrna to 
send them a copy of the epistle of Ignatius to himself, 
and of any other of the martyr’s letters which he might 
have by him. It is probably to this circumstance that 
we owe the preservation of the seven Letters of Ignatius.” 
Of the rest of the journey to Rome and the 
martyrdom of Ignatius we know nothing definite— 
we see the Saint for a few days, at most a few weeks, 
of his life, and he disappears as suddenly as he 
appeared. 
Ignatius has been the cause of one 
The di orcas of the greatest of literary controversies. 
Ignatian Epistles, His martyrdom was, after that of St. 
Stephen, the one which appealed most 
to the Christian imagination, and his Epistle to the 
Romans became, as Bp. Lightfoot terms it, a sort of 
martyrs’ manual.’ The tragic circumstances under which 
his letters were written made them very popular; they 
were embellished by additions, and five other letters 
were added in imitation of them. In the middle ages 
Ignatius was believed to have corresponded with St. 
John and the Blessed Virgin. The great St. Bernard 
was said to have countenanced this foolish fancy. At 


1. Polycarp to Philippians,c. 9. Lightfoot, of. cét., p. 37- 

2. Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, part 11., vol. I., p. 37- 

3. Lbid., p. 38. 

Bp. Lightfoot thinks that St. Bernard misled his readers by saying 
that a certain Mary, Mariam quandam, was Christofera, alluding to Mary 
of Cassobola. 


ke 


Ca 


CH. VI] THE IGNATIAN CONTROVERSY, 113 


the time of the Reformation Ignatius was credited with 
twelve letters, consisting of the seven we now have in 
a much expanded form, and five others, namely those 
to the Tarsians, Philippians, Antiochenes, Hero, and 
Mary of Cassobola. In addition to these there was a 
letter of this Mary to Ignatius. These letters are now 
called the longer recension. But it was observed by 
scholars that Eusebius mentions only seven Ignatian 
Epistles, and Vedelius, in a.p. 1623, printed the seven 
alluded to by that Father in one volume, and the 
remainder in a separate volume calling them 1a wevéd- 
evriypada Kal Ta voba. 

In 1641, when the famous Smectymnuus! controversy 
on the government of the Church by Bishops was 
raging in England, Archbishop Ussher made use of 
testimonies in favour of episcopacy taken from the 
Ignatian Letters. He was attacked on this point by 
the Puritan writers, the poet Milton among others 
declaring the Epistles to be forgeries. Ussher seriously 
investigated the question of the authenticity of the 
Letters, and in 1644 he published the results of his 
labours. He had noticed that, since the thirteenth 
century, the quotations from Ignatius made by English 
writers resembled the passages found in the ancient 
Fathers, and he divined that some copies of these 
Epistles existed in England in a less corrupted form 
than was then known. Two Latin MSS. were dis- 
covered of a shorter recension than that generally in 
use, and from these Ussher attempted to restore the 
genuine Ignatian Letters.2 It needed only the dis- 
covery of a Greek MS. to make the triumph of Ussher’s 
great critical genius complete, and two years later 
Isaac Voss published six letters of the shorter recension 
from a Greek MS. found in Florence. The Epistle 
to the Romans was not in the MS., which was im- 
perfect towards the end. A Greek copy of this letter 
was discovered half a century later and published by 
Ruinart in 1689 with the Greek ‘Acts of Ignatius’. 


1. So called from the initials of five Puritan divines (Stephen 
Marshall, Edmund Calamy, Thomas Young, Matthew Newcomen, 
William Spurstow) who took part in the controversy. 

2. Lightfoot, of. czt., pp. 231 foll. 


II4 THE SHORTER RECENSION, [CH. VL 


The controversy was resumed by Daillé, a French 
Protestant, whose work appeared in 1666, and to whom 
we owe a debt of gratitude for having caused Bishop 
Pearson to publish his Vindiciae Ignatianae in 1672.1 
For nearly two centuries the question was allowed to 
slumber. In 1838, however, Archdeacon Tattam pur- 
chased some manuscripts for the British Museum from 
the Monastery of St. Mary Deipara in the Desert of 
Nitria.2— One of these was a Syriac translation of the 
Epistles of Ignatius to Polycarp, the Ephesians, and the 
Romans. These letters are much shorter than the 
Epistles of the Vossian recension. ‘They were published 
in 1845 by Dr. Cureton, Canon of Westminster, as the 
genuine Ignatian Letters; but in the following year 
Dr. Wordsworth (afterwards Bishop of Lincoln) pro- 
nounced them to be an abbreviation of the true Letters 
by an Eutychian heretic. Cureton’s theory was based 
on the fact that the Syriac Letters omitted many strong 
exhortations on the subject of the duty of obedience 
to the bishop and his presbyters and deacons, whilst 
they retained others couched in equally forcible language. 
From this he inferred that the Syriac translator could 
have had no object in omitting that which is not 
found in his recension, though it might prove a tempta- 
tion to an editor of the Letters to interpolate passages 
in order to make the authority of the martyr support 
his own views.’ Dr. Cureton was supported by critics 
and historians like Bunsen, Weiss, Milman, and Pressensé; 
but the Tiibingen school, represented by Baur and 
Hilgenfeld, denied the genuineness of the Letters in 
any shape, and Volkmar held the Vossian recension 
to be an enlargement of the Curetonian Letters, made 
in A.D. 170, whilst condemning the latter as spurious. 
Indeed the matter was one of life and death to the 
Tiibingen view of Church history, and the theologians 


1. Daillé’s work was entitled: De Seriptes quae sub Dionysté 
Areopagitae et Ignatit Antiochent nominibus circumferuntur, libri duo. 
(Genevae, 1666.) Bp. Lightfoot (p. 319) considers his arguments ageraey 
the Ignatian Letters very uncritical. 

2. Cureton, Corpus Ignatzanum, Introd., p. xxvie 

3- JLbid., p. xxxvii. 


CH. Vi.}] VALUE OF THE IGNATIAN LETTERS. I15 


of that school had no alternative but to reject the 
Letters.1 

Bp. Lightfoot’s great work appeared in 1885. In 
it he has given the whole controversy a most judicious 
investigation and has pronounced in favour of the 
seven letters mentioned by Eusebius.? 

The Ignatian controversy is naturally 
in eae of interesting to Englishmen from the fact 
cbhiseversy. that some of the most learned of our 

bishops—Ussher, Pearson, and Lightfoot— 
have done much to restore the genuine Epistles, and 
that Dr. Cureton’s labours have thrown a flood of light 
upon the subject. But it claims the attention of all 
students of Church History alike, because the Letters 
are the key to our knowledge of the state of the Church 
in the early part of the second century. Their bearing 
on the question of Church government is of great im- 
portance. They give us a clear insight into the doctrine 
of the Person of Christ as held by the disciples of the 
Apostles. Further they are of the highest value in 
shewing the canonical position of St. Paul’s Epistles 
in the early days of the second century.’ Nor is this all; 
Ignatius shews that he has grasped the idea of a catholic 
and universal Church.‘ His letters prove him to have 
been always eager to know more Christians and to 
interest them in each other. They are the bridge by 
which we pass from the age of the Apostles to the 
age in which the Christian Church stands forth in 
the light of history.°. 


1. ‘‘If for instance Baur had accepted the Ignatian Letters as genuine 
even in their shortest form, he would have put an engine into the hands 
of his opponents, which would have shattered at a single blow all the 
Tiibingen theories respecting the growth of the canon and the history of 
the early Church.” (Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, part 11. vol. I., p. 270.) 

2, Euseb., A. A. 111. 36. 

Bp. Westcott says of the Ignatian Letters, ‘‘The image of St. Paul 
is stamped alike upon their language and their doctrine.” 2st. of Canon, 
j ve Ignatius is the first to use the term 7 kaOoAtky éexxAnola. (Smyrn.8.) 
For Ignatius and Judaism, see Hort, Jududstte Christianity, Lecture VIII. 

5. Duct. Christian Biog., Art. ‘ Ignatius’ (vol. iii., p. 216). 

6. The views of Bp. Lightfoot are not even now generally accepted 
in England. The Rev. John Owen, in his able introduction to Dr. Harnack’s 
Sources of the Apostolic Canons, summarises the arguments advanced by 

H 2 


116 THE CHURCH IN ASIA. (CH. VI. 


The Churches of Proconsular Asia are 
The Churches of great interest to the student of the sub- 
apostolic age, being unusually rich in 
Christian tradition. Ephesus had been the scene of the 
residence of St. Paul, St. Timothy, and St. John. 
St. Andrew, according to an early tradition, was a 
companion of the Evangelist, and actually assisted 
him in the composition of his Gospel. A Philip, 
whom Polycrates of Ephesus says was the apostle, 
but whom others identify with the deacon and evan- 
gelist, resided at Hierapolis;? his two virgin daughters 
lived to a great age and handed down to the men of the 
second century the traditions of the very earliest days 
of the Church.2 Thus Phrygia and Proconsular Asia 
became a second Holy Land to the Christians and the 
resting place of the last of those who had seen Jesus. 
Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, was 
perhaps born as early as a.p. 60, and 
had consequently come to years of discretion long before 
the death of St. John. No facts are known as to his 
life: it is not even certain whether he died a natural 
death or suffered martyrdom. Irenaeus calls him a 
hearer of St. John and a friend of Polycarp,* and there 
is a statement found in Eusebius that he was a very 
learned man.® He composed a treatise called Aorvyiwv 
Kuplaka@y €&7)ynous, of which nothing remains except the 


Papias. 


Canon Jenkins against the genuineness of the Letters, and remarks ‘* For 
impartial English scholars, the Ignatian question may, in my opinion, be 
regarded as finally settled.’”?’ Mr. Owen’s summary (Introd. pp. cx.—cxiii.), 
is however very clear but hardly conclusive. 

1. Muratorian Fragment. It was revealed to St. Andrew that 
St. John should write his Gospel aided by the revision of his fellow 
disciples and bishops. See Westcott, Canon, pp. 211 ff. 

2. Lightfoot, Colossians, ‘The Churches of the Lycus,’ p. 45. Euseb. 
HZ. E, 111. 30, 31 (3), quoting Clement of Alexandria and Polycrates ; both 
these speak of Philip the Apostle, but seem rather to allude to the Philip 
of Acts vi. 2—5, vill. 5—13, 26— 40 and xxi. 8, 9. 

3. Lightfoot, Joc. czt., p. 46. Assays on Supernatural Religion, Art. V., 
* Papias of Hierapolis.’ 

4. Iren., Ve 33 § 4. “Iwdvvov pév dxovorns IloAvkdprov dé ératpos 
yeyovws. 

5. Euseb., A. £. ul. 36, dvnp ra wavra bre pddtora oyiwraros. 
These words are however in only four MSS. and are omitted by Rufinus. 
The weight of MS. authority is in favour of the omission of the words, 
which the piety of a later age might well insert. The fragments of Papias 
are given in Lightfoot and Harmer’s Afostoléc Fathers. . 


CH. VI. | PAPIAS ON THE GOSPELS. 117 


extracts given in some of the Fathers. But the quota- 
tions from his writings by Eusebius are of the highest 
value, since they contain the first mention of the Gospels 
of St. Matthew and St. Mark.! Papias tells us that he 
made it his object to gather all the oral tradition of 
the elders of the Church. He says that he continually 
enquired what was said by Andrew, Peter, Philip, 
Thomas, James, John or Matthew. He was repeatedly 
asking, “ What do Aristion or the Presbyter John say ?’”? 
He was also accustomed to collect the traditions of 
the aged daughters of Philip. Like some others who 
have done good work in preserving oral traditions, 
Papias seems to have had great capacity of acquiring 
information combined with almost unlimited credulity. 
Eusebius calls him a man of a very small mind; and 
Irenaeus quotes a passage about the abundant plenty 
which the elect shall enjoy in the time of the Millennium, 
which helps to mitigate our regret that so large a 
portion of his writings is lost. But the very dullness 
of comprehension which makes Papias record the 
tradition of the vine with ten thousand clusters, on 
which those who shall dwell in Christ’s kingdom on 
earth shall feed, makes him a valuable witness when 
he records the exact words of John the Presbyter on 
the subject of the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark. 
His words are as follows— 

Heshis ion wie “The elder John used to say: ‘ Mark 
originof StMark’s having become Peter's interpreter, wrote 
and §t. Matthew's accurately all that he remembered ; though 

se oho he did not record in order that which was 
done or said by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord 
nor followed Him; but subsequently, as I said, [attached 
himself to] Peter who used to frame his teaching to 
meet the [immediate] wants of his hearers; and not 
as making a connected narrative of the Lord’s dis- 
courses. So Mark committed no error, as he wrote 
down some particulars just as he recalled them to 
mind. For he took heed to one thing, to omit none 


1. Euseb., H. Z. ul. 39 (15). 

2. Euseb., H. £. 111. 39 (4). It is to be noticed that the past (elzrev) 
is used when the Apostles are spoken of, but the present (Aéyovo.v) of the 
presbyter John and Aristion. 


118 PAPIAS AND ST. PAUL SNE 


of the facts that he heard, and to state nothing falsely 
in his narrative of them.” He says of St. Matthew, 
‘“‘Matthew composed the oracles in Hebrew, and each 
one interpreted them as he was able.’ 

Although St. Paul says that his disciple Epaphras? 
had a keen solicitude for the welfare of the church at 
Hierapolis, there is no allusion to his epistles in any of 
the extracts from Papias which have come down to us. 
On this account he is considered by some to have been 
a Jewish believer who disliked the Pauline form of 
Christianity. This view is disputed by Bp. Lightfoot,’ 
who shews that the name Papias was the designation of 
the Hierapolitan Zeus and therefore an unlikely one to 
be borne by a Jew, and also points out that Millenarian 
views were by no means confined to Jewish Christians, 
being held by Irenaeus, Tertullian,* and most of the early 
Fathers. Nor can his silence as to the writings of St. 
Paul be alleged as an argument that Papias did not 
receive his teaching, since Eusebius quotes only a few 
sentences of his works. ‘This historian, moreover, when 
writing about the canon of the New Testament only cites 
what the Fathers say about disputed books. For 
instance, in speaking of Irenaeus, Eusebius says that 
he used 1 John and 1 Peter, and accepted the Shepherd 
of Hermas, but he says nothing of his use of the Acts 
or of the writings of St. Paul. Hence a modern critic 
might be tempted to set him down as an Ebionite anti- 
Pauline writer, but for the fact that in his extant writings 
he quotes St. Paul more than two hundred times. But 
even if we grant that Papias was the head of a Judaeo- 
Christian community, the Ttibingen theory cannot be 
sustained in the case of a bishop who was a friend of 
Polycarp and against whose orthodoxy Eusebius, who 
disliked his Millenarian views, has not a word to say. 


1. Euseb., A. £. 111. 39. See Westcott, Ast. of the Canon, p. 71 ff. 
Lightfoot, Essays on Supernatural Religion, Art. v., ‘Papias of Hierapolis. 
Stanton, Zhe Gospels as Historical Documents, vol. 1., p. 52, vol. II., p. 39- 

2. Colossians, iv. 12, 13. ; : mG 

3. Essays on Supernatural Religion, Art. V., ‘ Papias of Hierapolis. 

4. Bp. Lightfoot (/oc. cit.) quotes Iren., Haer. V. 313 Tert., dav, 
Mare. 11. 24; de Res. Carn. 24. 

5. Salmon, Jutrod. to the New Test., p. 105 


CH. VI.] POLYCARP AND THE TRADITION, 11g 


Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, is one of 
the most important of the hearers of the 
Apostles. His influence was by no means confined to a 
single church or even to a single province. To him the 
eyes of Christians throughout the world, about the 
middle of the second century, were turned. When he 
visited Rome he was regarded with the utmost reverence 
by bishop and faithful alike. In Gaul Polycarp’s 
disciple Irenaeus related his master’s sayings to his 
disciples, and was the more reverenced by his flock 
because he had been the disciple of the great bishop of 
Smyrma. The martyrdom of Polycarp crowned the 
immense influence exercised by him. It was regarded 
as a matter not of local but of universal interest. The 
church of Smyrna addressed their letter, describing the 
sufferings of the saint, specially to the church at 
Philomelium, but also to all ‘ parishes’ of the Catholic 
Church.! 

Nor can we be surprised at this being the case, 
despite the fact that neither Polycarp’s epistle to the 
Philippians nor the sayings which Irenaeus has recorded 
of him give us any great idea of his intellectual power. 
His great age made him a link between the Apostles 
and the men whose work continued into the third 
century. During the later years of his life Gnostic 
speculation had become very active, and many things 
unknown to the faith of ordinary Christians were 
declared to be derived from the secret traditions of the 
Apostles. In the face of such pretensions, it was natural 


Polycarp. | 


that great value attached to the genuine tradition of 


Apostolic doctrine.” 
St. John, we are told by Irenaeus, 
ant tan, survived till the reign of Trajan, a.p. 100.8 
According to Clement of Alexandria, the 
Apostle, after his return from Patmos, went to Ephesus 
and gathered disciples about him. He seems to have 
organized the churches of Asia by providing them with 


1. Euseb., H. #. 1v. 15. ‘H éxxAnola rod Oe08 %) mapoaxotoa Dutpvay, 
77 éxkdAnola Tod Beod mapoikoton év Pirounrly, Kal wdoas rats xara wavra 
romov Tis wylas KaodcKAs éxxAnolas mapoixlats. 

2. Dict. of Christian Biog., Art. ‘ Polycarpus’, by Dr. Salmon, 

3. Iren., Haer. 111. 3, 4, héxpt TOY Tpaiavod xpbvuw. 


120 POLYCARP AND THE APOSTLES. [CH. VL 


bishops, one of whom is said to have been Polycarp.* 
But, according to Irenaeus, St. John was not the only 
eye-witness of our Lord’s life from whom Polycarp had 
received instruction. “He had” in the words of 
Irenaeus ‘‘ been trained by the Apostles and had conversed 
with many who had seen Christ,’”? and it is a note- 
worthy fact that his letter to the Philippians recalls the 
language of St. Peter rather than that of St. John. If 
Polycarp was the son of Christian parents he must have 
been born as early as a.D. 69, according to Bp. Lightfoot’s 
reckoning of the date of his martyrdom (A.D. 155—6). 

In the next glimpse we have of this 
Father we see him following in the steps 
of his master and instructing disciples in 
the traditions of the Apostles. Irenaeus in a letter to 
Florinus, a fellow disciple of his who had embraced 
Gnostic opinions, reminds him how Polycarp ‘ would 
describe his intercourse with John and with the rest of 
those who had seen the Lord, and how he would relate 
their words. And whatsoever things he had heard from 
them about the Lord and about His miracles and about 
His teaching, Polycarp, as having received them from 
eye-witnesses of the life of the Word, would relate it 
altogether in accordance with the Scriptures.’* This 
well remembered intercourse with Polycarp* makes the 
evidence of Irenaeus on the subject of St. John’s Gospel 
of the highest value in determining its authenticity. 

At the very close of his life, about 
A.D. 154, Polycarp undertook a visit to 
Rome to discuss with Anicetus the day 
on which the Christian Passover ought to be celebrated. 
Polycarp considered that it should always be celebrated 


Polycarp 
and lrenaeus, 


Polycarp at 
Rome. 


1. Clem. Alex., Quzs dives Salv. 42, quoted by Bp. Lightfoot, 
Apostolic Fathers, part 11., vol. i., p. 424. Tertullian (de Praeser. 
Haer, 32) says that Polycarp was ordained by St. John. In the Chronzcon 
Paschale it is said that St. John committed the charge of the robber, who 
had apostatised and been restored by the Apostle, to the bishop of Smyrna. 
Lightfoot, /oc. czt. 

2, Irene Aaerd L139) 

3. Quoted by Euseb., ZH. Z. v. 20. Transl. of letters in Lightfoot, 
Apostolic Fathers, part 1. vol. i. » Pp. 429. 

. Irenaeus (Euseb., oc. czt.) says, ‘‘I distinctly remember (d.auynpo- 
vevw) that time better than events of recent occurrence.’ 


CH. VI. ] POLYCARP AT ROME, I21 


on the 14th Nisan without respect to the day of the week, 
and pleaded the practice of St. John. Anicetus held that 
the festival should always be held on a Sunday. Neither 
bishop was ready to yield his opinion, nor to allow the 
difference between them to interrupt their Christian 
union, and Anicetus allowed Polycarp to celebrate the 
Eucharist in his place. While at Rome Polycarp is said 
to have converted many heretics by proclaiming the true 
Evangelical doctrine. He also encountered the heresiarch 
Marcion, and in reply to his question “ Knowest thou me?” 
said “I know thee the first-born of Satan.’ The Martyr- 
dom of Polycarp marks the close of an epoch in Church 
history. With him the last of the Apostolic age had 
passed away. 


1. This incident is related in Irenaeus’ letter to Victor, quoted by 
Eusebius, 4. Z. Vv. 24. 
2. Eusebius, &. &. Iv. 14 


_- = a re 


CHAPTER VII. 


ORIGIN AND PRINCIPLES OF GNOSTICISM. 


Tue Gnostic sects were the result of 
the contact of Christian principles with 
the current ideas of the first century; and 
every Gnostic system was an attempt to blend Chris- 
tianity with the theosophical speculations of the age. In 
a sense, however, Gnosticism is more ancient than the 
Church, being a philosophy of religion which seeks in 
the end to explain every cultus. Not only had Hellenism 
undergone a treatment similar to that to which the 
Gnostics subjected the Faith, but Judaism had, before 
the appearance of Christianity, been likewise transformed 
by external influences. The great test to which primitive 
Christianity was exposed from the outside world was 
not so much the danger of succumbing to persecution, 
as of losing itself in the popular philosophies of the 
heathen and Jewish world. In the critical period of the 
first half of the second century, the subject for investi- 
gation is how the Christian religion escaped being one 
of the many forgotten creeds of the Early Roman 
Empire, and emerged in a definite and permanent form. 
To pursue this it is necessary to understand the nature 
of the danger it encountered. 

The speculative philosophy of the East has always 
had a fascination for the practically minded West, and it 
exercises periodically a dominating influence. Alexander 
the Great’s conquests of the Eastern empires brought the 
victorious Greeks under the sway of Oriental ideas, 
and henceforward these obtained an increasing domina- 
tion over European thought. The nation whose work it 
was to act as the intermediary between Europe and Asia 
was the Jewish, which had (by its captivity to Babylon 


The Sources 
of Gnosticism. 


- 
2] 


. 


ee i Cnt 


io 
\ 


CH. VII.} ZOROASTER. 123 


and contact with Persia) become well fitted for the task 
five centuries before the appearance of the Christian 
religion. The ancient religion of the Hebrews, a 
singularly practical and unspeculative cultus in itself, 
became transformed into a creed full of mystical 
doctrines of angels and spirits, of hierarchies of heavenly 
beings and unseen worlds, by the influence of the 
religion of the Persian conquerors of the polytheists of 
Babylonia. 
The doctrine of Zoroaster, the great 
Zoroaster and the religious teacher of Persia, is found in 
the Zendavesta—literally the Text-and- 
comment—which is a work of eight books, written at 
different periods, the earliest of which has been assigned 
to B.c. 1200—1000.1 It tells us that from Zarvana 
Akarana or Boundless Time two antagonistic principles 
emanated,—Ormuzd (Ahuramazda) the eternal Word 
of the Father, and his younger brother Ahriman. 
Between these a contest soon began by each principle 
putting forth emanations: first Ormuzd after creating 
the pure world by his Word put forth the six 
Amshaspands, of which he himself was the seventh. 
These were of both sexes, and produced in turn the 
twenty-eight Izeds, from whom came forth an indefinite 
number of Frarashis or ideas; and afterwards his brother 
Ahriman, who for his pride and jealousy of Ormuzd had 
been condemned by the Supreme Being to sojourn in 
darkness for twelve hundred years, put forth three series 
of evil spirits or Devs to oppose his rival. In the 
contest with Ahriman the Word of Ormuzd, who is also 


called the Life or the Bull, was destroyed, but out of 


its scattered fragments Ormuzd made man and woman, 
whom he placed in the world which he and the good 
spirits had created. Ahriman, however, seduced the 
woman by a bribe of fruits and milk, and filled the 
world with noxious things. The Zendavesta predicts 
that in the days when evil seems triumphant, three 


1. It is a disputed point whether Zoroaster was a monotheist or a 
dualist. Beausobre in his History of Manicheeism says, ‘‘ Zoroastre n’a 
reconnu qu’un seul Dieu, Créateur immédiat du Monde des Esprits, mais 
Créateur médiat...... du Monde inférieur, qui est notre globe terrestre.” 
Harvey, Jgnatius, Prelim. Obs., p xv. 


124 KABBALISM. [CH. VII. 


prophets shall arise, one of whom, called Saoshvant, 
shall restore all things to their original purity. It is 
impossible not to be struck by the resemblance of some 
of the teaching of the Zendavesta to that of the Hebrew 
Scripture, nor to avoid acknowledging the great debt 
which Jewish theology after the Captivity owes to 
Persian teaching. The influence of the Zendavesta will 
be most clearly seen in the Kabbalistic literature of the 
Hebrews, and in the greatest of all the Gnostic heresies 
—that of Manes. 
reeyel, 2 The theosophy of the Jews is found in 
Kabbaia. the Kabbala, consisting in its present 
form of the Book of Yetsirah (or Creation) 
and the Book of Zohar (Brightness). Tradition assigns 
the composition of the Kabbala to the angels at the 
time of the fall of man; more moderate admirers of the 
work ascribe it to Rabbi Akiba and Rabbi Simon ben 
Jochai (A.D. 100—200); whilst according to the sober 
fact it was compiled as late as a.p. 1300, by Moses da 
Leon. But though the Kabbala, in its present form, 
may bea late work, the theories it propounds are ancient, 
some being undoubtedly earlier than the appearance of 
Christianity. The Zendavesta is closely followed in the 
language of the Kabbalists, the doctrine of both being 
reproduced in the teaching of several Gnostic sects.? 

The system of the Kabbala is shortly as follows :— 
God is Boundless Time and is called En-Soph. He can 
only be described as non-existent, but the ten Sephiroth 
emanate from him. These taken together form the 
Adam Kadmon or Primal Man. They are divided into 
three Triads; those on the right being male, in the centre 
copulative, and on the left female.? United they form 


1. King’s Gnostics and their Remains, p. 29. See my article ‘ The 
Jews and Persia’, /terpreter, April, 1907. Charles, Aschatology, p. 122. 

2. Smith and Wace, Diet. of Christian Biography, Art. ‘Cabbalah’, 
by Dr. Ginsburg. King, Zhe Gnostics and their Remains, p. 33 


Be Right hand. Centre. Left hand. 
MALE. COPULATIVE. FEMALE. 
THE HEAD Wisdom The Crown Intelligence Intellectual 
| wvedpa 
THE Bopy Mercy Beauty Justice Sensuous 
Yuxn 
THE FEET Firmness Foundation Splendour Materia! 


od pt 


CH. VII.] ESSENISM. 125 


the tenth Sephirah, which is styled Kingdom. From the 
Sephiroth proceed the four worlds, each of which is 
a reproduction of the other. The first—Aziluth—is 
inhabited by immaterial beings. The second—the 
world of Creation—is ruled by Metatron, the highest 
being man may know, under whom are the angelic 
hosts who occupy the third world of Formation. In 
the lowest world are the Devils under Samael. Man 
is formed on the model of the Adam Kadmon and 
has three souls borrowed from the three worlds, the 
N’shamah (mw), the Ruach (nn), the Nephesh (vw) or 
life.1 He wasclothed in skin because of his transgression, 
but he must eventually be redeemed from the bondage 
of the flesh. The Law, like man, was originally perfect 
and spiritual, but it has been clothed in the garment of 
narrative. To extract its true meaning it is necessary 
to observe a number of hermeneutic rules and especially 
to discover the numerical value of the letters of each 
word. 

There seem to be two distinct views of 
the Essenes,? by whom Kabbalistic theories 
were given a practical form; as some writers hold that 
they were merely scrupulous observers of the Law who 
withdrew from the world to practise asceticism in 
seclusion ; whilst others consider that their rigid austerity, 
especially as regards the prohibition of marriage, their 
custom of turning to the Sun at their worship, and 
above all their magical practices, and the oath they 
imposed upon their neophytes not to reveal the names of 
the angels, are proofs that they were not orthodox Jews, 
but mystics, who derived many of their tenets from Ori- 
ental sources. In confirmation of the latter view it may 
be added that they did not offer sacrifices in the Temple; 
this shrinking from taking animal life being eminently 
characteristic of Oriental philosophy. Their com- 
munities are described by Philo, Josephus, and Pliny the 


Essenes. 


gr. In King’s Gnostics and their Remains, four ‘worlds’ are 
mentioned and a fourfold division of the human soul. The highest of the 
four is Aziluth, from which man gets the Chaiah or principle of spiritual 
life. 

2. For references to the really important contemporary sources of 
information respecting the Essenes, see Lightfoot, Colosszans, p. 83, note I, 


126 INFLUENCE OF THE FAR EAST. cH. vi. 


Elder, but there is considerable doubt as to their tenets. 
There were four grades or orders among them, and 
the candidates had to pass through a rigid probation. 
Strangely enough they do not seem to be mentioned in 
the Talmud: Bp. Lightfoot in ‘his Commentary on the 
Epistle to the Colossians rejects all passages which are 
said to allude to this sect. 

Bnav The doctrines of Buddhism were pro- 

uddhism. : B Sy EGA : 

mulgated in India in the sixth century 
before Christ, by Sakya-Muni, also called Gautama. It 
is a philosophy rather than a religion, distinguished by 


the lofty morality, the sublime self-sacrifice inculcated 


by its teachers, its rigid ‘asceticism, its view that the 
highest end is the peace of Nirvana, or freedom from all 
desire to exist, and its practical denial of the existence 
of a personal God. Though Buddhism has never 
established itself in Europe, it made its influence felt in 
the Christian Church by means of Gnosticism, eapeua ny 
at Alexandria.’ 

erie Greek thought came into contact first 
‘with Egyptian and later with Indian ideas 
at Alexandria. It has been maintained that Egypt was 
the ultimate source of all Greek philosophy, and certainly 
the religion of that ancient land was fundamentally 
Gnostic in character. Here was a polytheism so gross 
and a religion so materialistic that the superstition of 
Egypt became a by-word, side by side with a philosophic 
creed held by the priests, so profound that it has been 
said “‘we find the best and wisest of the Greeks ever 
reverting to Egypt as the fountain head of religion and 
knowledge’’.® Herein lies the very essence of Gnosticism 
—an aristocracy of enlightenment explaining a popular 
creed. Greek, Jewish, and Christian beliefs experienced 
at Alexandria the same treatment as the old Egyptian 


1. Graetz mentions three probationary degrees. He alludes to the 
ceremony of initiation: ‘‘The new member was admitted with great 
solemnity, and presented with the white garment, the apron, and the 
shovel, the symbols of Essenism.” 7story of the Jews, vol. 1., p. 31, 
Eng. Trans. Our Lord has been supposed to have been an Essene. For this 
view see Schweitzer, Quest. of Historic Jesus, ch. iv. 

2. For Buddhism, see Buddhism by T. W. Rhys Davids, London, 
S.P.C.K., 1882; Bp. Coplestone, Buddhism. 

3. Harvey, /renacus, Prel. Obs., p. xxvii. 


> tia he 


rvese & 


CH. VII.] PRINCIPLES OF GNOSTICISM. 127 


myths had received at Memphis or On. The plain sense 
of Homer as well as that of the Old and New Testaments 
was said to conceal a hidden meaning of spiritual 
truths veiled in allegory. This method of exposition 
found equal favour with all three schools, and Judaism 
in Philo produced in the days of the Apostles a Gnostic 
untinged by Christianity... For unrestrained allegory is 
essentially gnostic in its contempt for realities. As to 
an Alexandrian the facts of Homer’s narrative and of 
the history of Abraham were equally unimportant com- 
pared with the truths they were supposed to inculcate, 
so by the Gnostic of later times the circumstances of 
our Lord’s life were disregarded, and their symbolic 
meaning alone considered of importance. The reality 
of the Divine Life on earth began to vanish, and in its 
place a phantom Teacher instructed mankind about the 
Aeons and heavenly powers. Thus arose those Docetic 
errors against which the Fathers of the Church rightly 
contended with such earnestness. 
: If we enquire what principles underlie 
Prinein le all Gnostic systems, we shall find a suffi- 
cient answer in a single sentence of 
Eusebius in which he speaks of the question much 
discussed among heretics, ‘ Whence comes evil?’? The 
question of the origin of evil occupied the mind of 
mankind, and Gnosticism sought to present the solution. 
The answer was not supplied by the Greek philosophers, 
who had not allowed themselves to perplex their minds 
with the problem, usually preferring to dwell on the 
less gloomy side of life. Far otherwise was it with 
Orientals, to whom the existence of evil was a question 
of all-absorbing interest. Indians and Persians had 
meditated thereon, and had decided by universal agree- 
ment that everything that was material, or that could 
be perceived by the natural senses of man, partook 
of the nature of evil. Matter being evil, the conclusions 


1. Of Judaism among the Hellenistic Jews Harnack says, ‘‘The 
Jewish religion here appears transformed into an universal human ethic and 
monotheistic cosmogony.”” zstory of Dogma, Eng. Transl., p. 107. 


2. Hist. Eccl. v. 27, wept rod wodvOpvaAdjrov mapa Tots aiperrwracs 
gnrhparos, Tod ‘wrdbev H Kaxla’, 


128 EVIL INHERENT IN ‘MATTER’. [CH. VIL 


drawn from the examination of the errors condemned 
by the Apostolic age follow. 

1. A higher knowledge than is possessed by 
ordinary men is necessarily required to apprehend that 
which is super-sensuous. This was recognised as a 
truth by the Christian teachers, and by none more 
clearly than by St. Paul, who in the First Epistle to 
the Corinthians speaks of the impossibility of the 
natural man (yvyex«os) understanding spiritual things 
(mvevpatixa)'. But whilst the Christian sought this 
spiritual perception from God, the Gnostics as a rule 
believed it to be the exclusive possession of those higher 
natures who were born capable of enjoying the benefit 
of more perfect instruction. The yvaois in the eyes of 
the latter was the possession of a favoured few, who 
alone were capable of emancipation from the restraining 
influences of material existence.? 

2. If the material of which this world consists is 
essentially evil, it is evident that it cannot be the 
creation of the supreme God. It is also obvious that 
the union between God and the world cannot possibly 
be a direct one, but must be through the medium of 
agencies the lowest of which approaches most nearly 
to material existence. The Gnostic therefore held that 
the Creator of this world was by his very nature inferior 
to the true God. 

The worship of angels is a natural consequence 
of the foregoing. Man cannot understand one who is 
separated from his world by so vast a gulf as the perfect 
God. We can only approach Him through a multitude 
of beings which form part of a vast chain of emanations 
uniting the finite to the infinite. 

4. If we acknowledge that matter is inherently 
evil we cannot admit the doctrine of the Incarnation. 
Christ, the highest emanation from the Father, cannot 
have soiled Himself by taking a material body. If man 
did behold Him on earth it was by some delusion, since 
He could have taken no real human form. 


1. 3 Cor. th 14 

2. Dobschutz, Tipe in the Primitive Church, p. 254. ‘* Gnosticism 
is, in the first place, intellectualism, one-sided over- “valuation of knowledge 
at the expense of moral activity.” 


i 
a 
Z 
7 
i 


CH. Vil.] GNOSTIC IDEAS IN THE APOSTOLIC AGE. 129 


Matter being evil, the body must be evil, and 
consequently the duty of the true Gnostic was to shew 
himself hostile to it. Two courses lay open to him; 
either to conquer its desires by ascetic practices, or 
to adopt the alternative of shewing that he con- 
sidered the body to be so contemptible that he saw 
no harm in degrading it by indulgence in every species 
of sin. 

That some of these doctrines contain certain truths 
is undeniable, but a wrong light is thrown upon them 
all by the Gnostic teaching that matter is in itself 
inherently evil. Herein lies the inherent weakness of 
all Gnostic systems; they strike at the root of all 
morality, by denying that man in his state of material 
existence is responsible for his sins, which they assert 
are not the result of his free choice, but the inevitable 
consequences of the state in which he is placed. It is 
strange that a form of modern scepticism, starting from 
the opposite standpoint that matter is everything and 
spirit nothing, should have arrived by a different route 
at a perfectly similar conclusion. 

In the days of the Apostles signs of 
op ae incipient Gnosticism were not wanting, 
as is evidenced by St. Paul’s epistle, 
written about a.p. 63, from Rome to the Colossian Church, 
which was threatened by a heresy, characterised by 
Bp. Lightfoot as “‘ Christian Essenism, as distinguished 
from the Christian Pharisaism of the false teachers in 
Galatia”. That the heresy at Colossae was Judaic in 
character is evident from such a passage as “ Let no 
man therefore judge you in meat or in drink, or in 
respect of a feast day, or a new moon, ora sabbath” ;? 
and that it may contain many of the elements of 
Gnosticism may be seen— 
(a) By the way in which St. Paul dwells on such 


1. Irenaeus, Hereszes, 1. 1, 10 and 12, speaking of the Valentinians ; 
Hippolytus, Phzlosophumena vi. 19, of Simon Magus. The ‘elect’ 
claimed the right to sin with impunity, since gold when plunged into 


_ mire loses not its beauty. Many Gnostics refused to see merit in martyrs 


dom, and opposed the zeal, often excessive, for it sometimes found in 
the Church. Débschutz, Life in the Primitive Church, p. 250. 
Re Col, di. 36. 


I 


130 THE COLOSSIAN HERESY. _ (CH, VIL 


words as wisdom (oodfa), understanding (cvvects), 
knowledge (yvaous and émriyvwots), and by the implied 
condemnation of any intellectual exclusiveness in the 
words vovOetoivtes mavta avOpwrov Kal diddoKovtes 
mavta avOpwrov dv radon copia wa tapactnowpev 
mavta avOpatrov téXevov ev Xpiot@. Here the word was 
is four times repeated in order to exclude any idea of 
the Gospel lacking universality or completeness. 

(b) By the condemnation of the worship of angels,? 
and the repeated assertion that Christ is above all 
heavenly thrones, lordships, powers, and authorities, 
and that the plevoma or fulness of divine perfection 
dwells in Him.’ 

(c) As the false teachers of Colossae laid great 
stress on asceticism, St. Paul warns the Colossians 
“Let no man judge you in meat or in drink”; and 
again, “Why do ye subject yourselves to ordinances, 
‘handle not, nor taste, nor touch’; which things have 
a show of wisdom in will-worship, and humility, and 
severity to the body?’’"* &c. The Colossian heresy has 
consequently been pronounced to contain all the essential 
elements of a Gnostic system.® 

soy The neighbouring city of Ephesus was 
Epes © @.-«GTeat stronghold of Apostolic Chris- 
tianity, and it was there that the most 

insidious attacks on the Faith were made. ‘The Epistle 
to the Ephesians, which bears a very strong resemblance 
to the Colossian letter, earnestly upholds the superiority 
of Christ to all the heavenly powers.® St. Paul is 


I~ Co}, :iti28, 2... Col. 28. 

3. Opdvor, kupidrnres, dpxal, éfovolar. Col. i. 16, ii. 10, 15. 

4. Col. ii. 16, 20—23. Ma 

5. Dr. Hort (Judazstic Christianity, pp. 116—129) gives many 
reasons for rejecting the hypothesis that the so-called Colossian heresy was 
the result of a union of Essenism with Christianity. He compares the warn- 
ings to the Colossians with those given by the author of the Epistle to the 
Hebrews, and (pp. 119, I20) argues that the words in Col. ii. 8—7js 
dirocopias Kat Kevijs drdrys—do not imply a Gnostic system, but simply 
ascetic Judaism. The leaders of the Jewish party at Colossae may have 
called their teaching 7 gtAocodia. ‘* This” to quote Dr. Hort ‘* would 
be merely a fresh example of a widely spread tendency of that age to 
disarm Western prejudice against things Jewish by giving them a quasi 
Hellenic varnish.” Cf. also Dr. Knight, 4%. to Colossians, pp. 27 ff., and 
Williams, Colossians and Philemon, xvii ff. 

6. Ephesians 1. 20—23. 


a 


CH. VII. ] GERMS OF DOCETIC HERESY. 131 


evidently hinting at the prevalence of errors similar 
to those at Colossae; but this letter, being probably a 
circular epistle, does not attack the false doctrine so 
directly as its companion letter addressed to the church 
of Colossae. We see also from the Acts that St. Paul 
had been very apprehensive of the danger of heresy in 
Ephesus. The attempt made by Jewish exorcists like 
the sons of Sceva to form an alliance with the Christian. 
teachers boded no good ;? and at a later date St. Paul 
in his speech at Miletus says to the elders of the 
Ephesian church, “I know that after my departing 
grievous wolves shall enter in among you, not sparing 
the flock; and from among your own selves shall 
men arise, speaking perverse things,” &c.2 That these 
forebodings were fulfilled is evident from the epistles 
to Timothy, who was left at Ephesus probably after 
St. Paul’s liberation from his first Roman captivity. 
The errors, of which Timothy is warned to beware, 
are not unlike those at Colosae, but the Jewish element 
is even more prominent. The false teachers ‘ desire to 
be teachers of the Law’;® they share with the Essenes 
a dislike of marriage ;* like the Colossian heretics they 
command abstinence from meats. In the Epistle to 
Titus, which belongs to the same group as1 Timothy, 
the myths of the heretics are expressly styled Jewish. 
The Gnostic element appears in the asceticism above 
noticed, and in the concluding words of 1 Timothy in 
which the Apostle speaks of “the oppositions of know- 
lege falsely so called”.5 Without entering fully into 
the subject of the heresy condemned in the Pastoral 
Epistles, it may be well to call the attention of the 
reader to one feature which has no counterpart in the 


~Colossian heresy. The first indications of the Docetic 
error, denying the reality of the incarnation of our 
d Lord, appear to have induced St. Paul to assert plainly 
that Jesus Christ was manifest in the flesh.6 If we 
_had nothing else to go upon but this passage, this state- 


’ 


BR AS 


ment might appear to be fanciful; but on turning te 


1. Acts xix. 14. 2. Acts xx. 29—30. 
e..Farmad. 7. ae On Tie iv: 
. I Tim. vi. 20, dvridéces Tis Yevdwvdpou yrucews. 
é I Tim. iii. 16, bs épavepdOn év capxl. 11 Tim. ii, 8, 
12 


a ad oa ‘= 
Pia at g pi - 
——s 


132 DANGERS IN LATER APOSTOLIC AGE. [cH. viL 


the Johannine literature, which also seems to have been 
produced at Ephesus, we find special stress laid on 
the fact that Jesus Christ came in the flesh.’ It is 
possible that the assertion of Hymenaeus and Philetus, 
who said ‘‘that the resurrection is past already,’*? was 
due to this belief in the inherent evil of matter, which 
made many shrink from the Christian doctrine of the 
Resurrection.® | 

After the death of St. Paul, the false 
teachers appear to have pushed their 
doctrines to the most fatal of all conclusions adopted 
by the Gnostics. We have seen how an undue regard 
for yvoots, as contrasted with the great Christian virtues, 
led to serious misapprehension, and how a false ideal 
of life had been developed owing to the asceticism 
enforced on aspirants to the higher knowledge. We 
have seen how the cardinal doctrines of the Faith were 
tampered with, and the reality of the Incarnation denied ; 
but, though we may condemn the errors of the false 
teachers, their lives seem at first to have been free from 
any moral stain. But experience shewed that the 
vigorous condemnation of Gnostic error was justified. 
Immorality began to be the distinguishing feature of 
some false teachers at the close of the apostolic age. 
The following passages are sufficiently explicit to shew 
that the heaviest charge against the heretics at this 
time was one of immorality. In 1 Peter we find them 
condemned in the following terms: “Among you also 
shall be false teachers who shall privily bring in 
destructive heresies (aipécets amwaAciais), denying even 
the Master that bought them 5......... and many shall 
follow their lascivious doings (tais dacedyelas), by 
reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken 
re AE Ae but chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the 


Antinomianism. 


1. John i. 14, 6 Adyos capt éyévero. 1Johniv. 2. 1 John, 7. 

22. ORT im. G17) Bes . 

3. Dr. Hort, /udazstic Christianity, p. 146, after discussing the 
alleged evidences of Gnostic error condemned in the Pastoral Epistles, 
pronounces against them. He admits however “‘ that there are indications 
are of some such abstinence in the matter of foods......as at Colossae and — 
Rome, with a probability that marriage would before long come likewise — 
piss a religious ban.” See also Dr. Bernard, Pastoral Epistles, pp. 

v 


CH. Vil,] CLASSIFICATION OF GNOSTIC SECTS, 133 


lust of defilement, and despise dominion,...... men that 
count it pleasure to revel in the day-time, spots and 
blemishes, revelling in their love-feasts while they feast 
with you: having eyes full of an adulteress, and that can- 
not cease from sin (weotovs woryanibdos Kai axatatravaTous 
auaptias),...... they entice in the Iusts of the flesh by 
lasciviousness those who are just escaping from them 
that live in error.”! A very similar passage occurs in 
St. Jude, but it is noticeable that, whereas St. Peter uses 
the future tense as though he were speaking propheti- 
cally, St. Jude has the present as though he witnessed the 
corrupt doings of the false teachers.2 Whether the 
Apocalypse belongs to this or to an earlier period is 
undecided. It alludes not unfrequently to heresies of 
this type, and the false doctrines are compared to the 
teaching of Balaam who caused the children of Israel 
“to eat things offered to idols and to commit fornica- 
tion”. This is the only book in the New Testament 
which mentions the sect of heretics called Nicolaitans.§ 
- epnel apaghe It has been long perceived that the 
Gnostic Sects, Sccts of Christian Gnostics are capable of 
classification under the different opinions 
of their teachers. We have already seen that on certain 
points they are all in agreement, but there are others on 
which the divergencies are considerable. The chief of 
these are, the character of the Demiurge or Creator, and 
the relation of the Jewish Law to the Christian dis- 
pensation. Mosheim adopts the first of these differences 
as the basis of his classification. He divides the Gnostics 
into Syrian and Alexandrian: the former, under the 
influence of Persia, regarding the Demiurge as an active 
principle of evil like Ahriman: the latter looking on 
matter as a passive but unwilling opponent of God, and 
the Demiurge as a being emanating from Him, and 
striving to bring the chaos of material existence into 
order.t Gieseler adopts Mosheim’s classification, but 
recognises a third class in Marcion and his followers, 


I. 1 Peter ii. 1, 2, 10, 13, 14, 18. 
2. Jude, 8—13. See Mayor on 11 Peter and Jude, pp. clxvii ff. 
. Apoc. ii. 2, 6,9, 13—15, 20, iii. 4,9. Swete, Apocalypse, p. xxi, 
See also Dobschutz, Life 2m the Primitive Church, pp. 224, 251 ff. 
4- Mosheim, Commentaries, vol. I., sec. LXIV. 


134 THE GNOSTIC SECTS. © [cH vin 


considering, no doubt, that his opposition to Judaism 
shews that this teacher belonged to a different school.* 
Neander? distinguishes between those who accepted and 
those who rejected the Jewish dispensation, ang divides 
the Gnostic systems thus: | 


Gnostics connected with | In conflict withJudaism, | Regarding Christianity 


Judaism, inclining to Paganism. | _ as completely new. 
Cerinthus Ophites Marcion 
Basilides Cainites 

Valentinus Carpocrates 


Baur adopted a threefold division ; the Heathen 
Gnostics, then the Marcionites or anti-Jewish Gnostics, 
and the Iudaizers, who he considered tried to reconcile 
the two earlier tendencies.? 

Bp. Westcott in his Introduction to the Study of the 
Gospels shews that the Gnostics represented the four 
different types of Christian teachers that existed in New 
Testament times. He regards Cerinthus and the Ebionites 
as representing in an extreme form the Jewish sympathies 
of St. Matthew and St. James. The Docetae in their 
preference for the Gospel of St. Mark stand for examples 
of the extreme followers of the school of St. Peter; 
Marcion’s teaching shews the tendency of the Pauline 
doctrine pushed beyond its legitimate logical conclusion; 
and Valentinus by his language proves himself to be 
imbued with the style but not the spirit of the 
Johannine literature.* 

If it were possible accurately to fix the date of each 
teacher of the Gnosis, it might prove the best means of 
classification. It is possible to shew that, whereas the 
earliest Gnostic teachers hardly took any account what- 
ever of Christianity and seemed unacquainted even with 
the history of Jesus, the later heretics, on the other hand, 
take the greatest interest in Christianity and shew an 
intimate acquaintance with its literature, history, and 


I. Gieseler, Ecclestastical History, vol. 1., p. 81 foll. Eng, Trans. 
(Philadelphia and London, 1843.) 

2. Neander, Church History, vol. I1., pp. ant 

3. Baur, Church History, vol. 11., pp. 32—4 

4. Westcott, /xtroduction to the Study of the Guepali, ch. iv., p. 240. 


SCHEME OF VALENTINUS. 


Che Hby Spirit THE gre 
‘Staurod SEE No A Ri ETS 
he Works 
of Achonotte. 
She ae ace 
So 
w fora by 
Chur gre jedt 
by (foous a 
eas 
The Demiowt; gos 
and Aus Ooroad, 
She J Pee hee. 


Settamthe Rinew 
of thie pwoorks. ° 


CH. vi.] GNOSTICISM AND THE CHURCH. 135 


doctrines. Christianity thus gradually invaded the 
realms of the Gnosis, and after a long struggle subdued 
it to the service of the Church. ‘The history of the 
Gnosis, from the profane attempt of a Simon Magus to 
use the power of Christ for magical purposes to the time 
when St. Clement of Alexandria conceived the idea of 
the true Christian Gnostic, is a record of the way in 
which the Gospel consecrated the attempts of mankind 
to find out God and led them to the knowledge of the 
Truth through Jesus Christ. 

For it is impossible to regard the Gnostics either as 
mere impostors, or as hateful heretics who wilfully 
perverted the word of God. It appears even permissible 
to regard the Gnosticism of the second century rather as 
a precursor than a willing opponent of Christianity, and 
it is quite possible that through the defective systems 
of some of the teachers of the Gnosis many became 
Christians; as at a later time St. Augustine was a 
Manichaean before his baptism, and as in the middle 
ages many of the greatest Jewish Kabbalists entered 
the Church. 

The Ophites. The Ophites, whose opinions were pro- 
mulgated early in the second century, were 

according to Hippolytus the first to call themselves 
Gnostics.. We have two separate accounts of them, 
one by Hippolytus, the other by Irenaeus. The name 
Ophites, derived from é¢is ‘a serpent’, implies that 
they were worshippers of a serpent; and that this 
designation was not given by opponents is proved 
by the fact that they styled themselves Naaseni 
from the Hebrew wm (Nachash) a serpent. Their 
most striking tenet was that the serpent in the Old 
Testament, who beguiled Eve, was in reality a bene- 
ficent being, who raised mankind to the knowledge 
of good and evil. Hippolytus gives a long exposition 
of their views, taken from Ophite text-books which he 
had collected. In this, as is his wont, he labours to shew 
that the wisdom of the sect was borrowed entirely from 
the philosophers of Greece and the heathen mystics, 


1. Hippolytus, v.,c. 6. King, Guostics and their Remains, p. 82. 


136 HIPPOLYTUS ON THE OPHITES.  [cH. vik 


astrologers, and magicians. He says “they make use 
of the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel according to 
the Egyptians,’’ and he represents them as explaining 
that the myths of antiquity, such as the mutilation of 
Atys and the story of Isis and Osiris, foreshadowed their 
doctrines, They seem to have had a wide knowledge of 
both the Old and the New Testament, and many of 
their explanations are extremely ingenious; for example, 
they interpreted the passage in which St. Paul, speaking 
of the abominations of the Heathen world, says that 
they work unseemliness,! as referring to that heavenly 
sublime felicity ‘‘the absence of all form which is the 
real source of every form.” 

Although Hippolytus devotes a large portion of his 
work to a description of this form of Gnostic error, and 
goes on to speak of the kindred sects of the Peratae and 
Sethians, he does not give us any very definite explana- 
tion on the subject of the real opinions of the Ophites, 
and we must turn to Irenaeus to obtain further 
particulars.’ 

Carpocrates was a Platonic philo- 
sopher at Alexandria. Like Marcion he 
was bitterly opposed to Judaism, and held that re- 
demption could only be found in emancipation from the 
powers that ruled the material world. He taught that 
‘works’ were indifferent, and were good or bad in 
human opinion only. His followers pushed his theories 
to the greatest length, and like the Ophites and Cainites 
completely reversed the notions of good and evil. This 
sect was active in Rome during the time of Irenaeus, 
who refutes their theories at great length. 

Basilides, who is considered one of 
the best types of Egyptian Gnosticism, 
according to Hippolytus borrowed his system from 
Aristotle. This Father however hints at the truth when 


Carpocrates. 


Basilides. 


zr. Rom. i. 27, rhv doxnuocvvnv karepyavsuevor. 

2. Irenaeus, Aaeres., bk. 1,, cc. 29—36. Irenaeus never calls the 
heretics described in these chapters Ophites, but Theodoret, who copies his 
description, gives them that title. See Smith and Wace’s Dict, Christian 
Biog., Article ‘Ophites’, by Dr. Salmon. For an account of the opinions 
of the Ophites, Basilides and Valentinus, see Appendix A. 

3. Haer. 1., 93 ff. 


al * =< ’ ‘“ 
si . 


CH. VII.] VALENTINUS. 137 


he says, after describing the heretical opinions of 
Basilides, “These then are the things which Basilides 
fables, who taught in Egypt, and having learned the 
wisdom of the Egyptians brought forth such fruits as 
these.” It seems from this that Hippolytus also regards 
the theory of Basilides as an adaptation of the esoteric 
doctrine of the Egyptian priesthood, and in this he is 
probably more correct than when heasserts that Basilides 
plagiarised Aristotle. 

From Basilides we are led naturally to Valentinus, 
another Egyptian Gnostic teacher, who may justly be 
termed the poet eee 

| othing can suggest more forcibl 

een ee othe deep gulf which divides the spirit of 
Christianity from that of Gnosticism, than the contrast 
between the bewildering intricacy of the system of 
Valentinus and the profound simplicity of the language 
of the Gospel of St. John, with which it has a seeming 
affinity. This complexity, however, was nevertheless 
the cause of the great popularity the doctrine of 
Valentinus enjoyed. It had the additional attraction 
of being eclectic, combining as it did a variety of Greek, 
Oriental, and Christian speculations.” It greatly resembles 
the system of Basilides, but is more elaborate, and the 
abstractions in the scheme of that teacher are personi- 
fied by Valentinus. The main point to be noticed is 
the adoption of the Platonic teaching that the perfect 
patterns or ideas of the things we see exist in the 
spiritual world above. 

The chief followers of Valentinus were, Secundus, 
Ptolemaeus, Marcus, Heracleon, Theodotus and Alex- 
ander. Bardesanes, the Syrian mystic, was his disciple. 

shee tes The two remaining systems of Gnostic 

Binoes. speculation are later in date than those 

previously mentioned, and differ from 
them in many respects. The questions which interested 
the earlier teachers are almost entirely ignored, and 
the Heathen elements of Gnostic thought fall into 


1. King, Gnostics and their Remains, p. 70. 
2. Irenaeus, Haeres., bk. 1. Hippolytus, vi.,cc. 16—32. Mansel, 
Gnostic Heretics, Lect. XII. 


133 MARCION. 7 > [CH VIE 


the background. The doctrines of Marcion and his 
opponents, instead of being based on Greek or Oriental 
views, are taken professedly from Christian tradition 
and the Scriptures of the Church, and their object is 
to bring into prominence some particular aspect of 
Christian thought. Marcion! was a Christian by birth 
and education, the son of a bishop of Sinope, in Pontus, 
circ, 120 A.D. He came to Rome to propagate his 
opinions, and there became acquainted with a teacher 
like-minded with himself, one Cerdon a Syrian, who 
had, according to Irenaeus, taught in the imperial 
city during the pontificate of Hyginus (A.D. 139—142). 
He tried in vain to induce the clergy of Rome to receive 
him into. communion, and upon their refusal, founded 
a separate church. The earlier Gnostics had, like 
Basilides and Valentinus, been mystics and transcenden- 
talists; they had busied themselves with the solution of 
such inscrutable mysteries as the attributes of God, and 
His relation to the universe. Marcion on the other hand 
was of an eminently practical turn of mind, and mani- 
fested rather the characteristics of modern rationalists 
and sceptics than those of an ancient Gnostic. He set 
before himself certain practical problems for solution, 
and troubled himself but little with the mysteries of the 
invisible world. 
465) Marcion’s difficulties may be summed 
ioutent! up by saying that they consisted in the 
: faet that (a) God, as portrayed in the Old 
Testament, is not, to all appearance, of the same nature 
as He, Whom Christ describes in the Gospel; and that 
(b) absolute justice is incompatible with perfect mercy. 
(a) The first of these difficulties is stated by 
Marcion in a book called Antitheseis or ‘Oppositions’, 
written to shew that the Old Testament is in opposition 
to the New. It is curiously modern in tone. If we may 
judge from the arguments quoted from it by Tertullian, 


¥. Irenaeus, Haeres., bk. 1., c. 28 foll. Hippolytus, vit., cc. 17—18. 
Tertullian, Adv. Marcionem, 1v. 4. Epiphanius, Praescri~., 30—42. 
Marcion presented a large sum of money to the Church of Rome, which 
was restored to him when he became a heretic. For the relation of 
Marcion to modern ideas, see my Christian Difficulties in the Second and 
Twentieth Centuries. Burkitt, Gospel Transmission. 


CH. vil.} JUSTICE AND EQUITY CONTRASTED. 139 


it might have been issued by a sceptic of to-day. God, 
says Marcion, could not have been perfectly wise or 
perfectly good, or He would not have made man in His 
own image and then have allowed him to fall. His 
calling in the garden ‘Adam, where art thou?’ shews 
He did not know where Adam was. The command to 
Israel to spoil the Egyptians, and the choice of Saul, 
are acts unworthy of a perfect God. In short, Marcion 
collects all the passages of the Old Testament in which 
God seems to be represented unworthily, and draws as 
his conclusion that He Who inspired the Old Testament 
was not the true God. Marcion never said that the God 
of the Jews was an evil being. He recognised that the 
ruler of this world was actuated by just motives, but he 
accounted for the difficulties of the ancient Scriptures 
by asserting that the God therein described was limited 
in intelligence. 

(6) ‘The principle on which this Limited Intelli- 
gence! governed the world was one of strict and unde- 
viating justice, of the kind which Aristotle contrasts 
with equity, and consequently he only regarded with 
favour those men who observed the just though imperfect 
law given to his chosen people. Those who had not 
attained to the righteousness which is by the Law lay 
under the displeasure of the God of this world, although 
they were no less capable of good than the so-called just 
persons. 

It is easy to see in the foregoing a perversion of the 
teaching of St. Paul,? due doubtless to a desire to break 


1. Mill, Three Essays on Religion. ‘Theism,’ Part v. (General 
Result.) ‘‘ The indication given by such evidence as there is points to the 
creation, not, indeed, of the universe, but of the present order of it, by an 
Intelligent Mind, whose power over the materials was not absolute, whose 
love for his creatures was not his sole actuating inducement, but who, 
nevertheless, desired their good. The notion of a providential govern- 
ment by an Omnipotent Being for the good of his creatures must be 
entirely dismissed.” The ‘Intelligent Mind’ of John Stuart Mill and 
Marcion’s ‘God of the Jews’ are not entirely unlike. 

2. ‘*Marcion was the only Gentile Christian (of the first century and 
a half) who really understood Paul, and even he misunderstood him: the 
rest never got beyond the appropriation of particular Pauline sayings and 
exhibited no comprehension especially of the Theology of the Apostle. 1 
This remark of Harnack’s (History of Dogma, English Translation, p. 89) 


140 CANON OF MARCION. (CH. Vie 


entirely from the Jewish ideas which influenced Christian 
theology. This is the more apparent when we examine 
Marcion’s theory of redemption. His Gnostic tendencies 
exhibit themselves in his view that redemption is the 
imparting of a higher knowledge, a redemption not from 
sin but from ignorance. According to Marcion, Christ 
appeared suddenly—the record of His birth and infancy 
being purely fabulous—in the synagogue at Capernaum 
in the fifteenth year of Tiberius, and proclaimed the true 
God. The God of this world, being angry, stirred up 
the Jews to crucify Him. Marcion taught that as 
Christ’s appearance on earth was entirely unreal, He did 
not actually die, though His seeming sufferings had a 
purpose in teaching mankind to despise death and pain. 
After His Resurrection Christ taught the truth to the 
Demiurge, and to St. Paul, the only preacher of the 
genuine Gospel. Marcion admitted the doctrine of the 
descent into hell, but offered a very strange explanation 
of Christ’s preaching to the spirits in prison, spoken of 
by St. Peter! He held that those who, like Cain, Esau, 
and Saul, were condemned in the Old ‘Testament, 
received Christ with joy, whilst those whom the God 
of this world had rewarded remained satisfied with the 
happiness of Abraham’s bosom. Like other Gnostics, 
Marcion divided humanity into ‘spiritual, psychical, and 
carnal, but unlike some of his predecessors he insisted 
upon the most rigid purity of life, and regarded martyr- 
dom with at least as much reverence as the orthodox 
teachers of the Church. But Marcion has other claims 
on our attention: he is the first rationalistic critic, a 
forerunner of the modern school of ‘higher criticism’. 
Unfortunately for his reputation, he yielded to the 
temptation, into which other critics have fallen, of 
pronouncing all passages which did not square with his 
theory to be either spurious or corrupt. As two-thirds 
of the New Testament was opposed to Marcion’s doctrine, 
he rejected all except the writings of St. Luke and St. 
Paul. Of these he only accepted a mutilated edition of 


is one which, even though we may disagree with it, we must recognise 
as weighty and significant. See also Cruttwell, Zarly Christian 
Literature. 

x. 1 Peter iii. 19. 


CH, VII.] JUDAIZING GNOSTICS, 141 


St. Luke’s Gospel, which he subjected to a very thorough 
' revision, and ten Epistles of St. Paul. It is a remarkable 
fact that Marcion refused to acknowledge the genuine- 
ness of the Pastoral Epistles, and that he declared 
that the letter to the Ephesians was addressed to the 
Laodiceans.t Dean Mansel quotes a few of Marcion’s 
critical ‘improvements’, of which one example will 
suffice. The words, “It is easier for heaven and earth to 
pass, than for one tittle of the law to fail,’ become “It 
is easier for the heaven and earth and for the law and 
the prophets to fail, than for one tittle of the words of 
the Lord.”? The Christology of Marcion, as has been 
observed by Neander, closely resembles that which was 
soon afterwards taught by the Patripassians, but rejected 
by the Church.® It is not at all certain that his language 
does not imply that the supreme God Himself appeared 
on earth; and if this be so, Marcion in some degree 
forestalled the Patripassian doctrines of Noetus and 
Praxeas. 

As Tertullian’s five books against him 
testify, Marcion was considered by the 
early Fathers one of the most dangerous of the Gnostics. 
But one of his opponents, like him, fell under the im- 
putation of heresy, though it is not easy to say 
exactly what his errors were. Bardaisan, or Bardesanes* 
(A.D. 179), is mentioned by Eusebius as having been 
originally a disciple of Valentinus, whose teaching he 
abandoned for more orthodox opinions, without how- 
ever completely freeing himself from the taint of heresy. 
Bardaisan was a Syrian, a native of Edessa, and his 
Dialogue on Fate is one of the most original products 
of the Syriac-speaking Church.* 

oe The tendency which was most opposed 
Quisizing to Marcion’s teaching is found in the 
so-called Clementine Literature and in 

the Book of Elkesai. Here again, modern criticism 


Bardaisan. 


1. Tertullian, adv, Mare., v., cc. 11 and 21. 

2. Mansel, Gnostic Heretics, p. 207. St. Luke xvi. 17. 

3. Neander, Church History, vol. 11., pp. 143—144. 

. For Bardaisan, the Syrian opponent of Marcion, see Burkitt, 
Early Eastern Christianity, Lect. v. 

5. Euseb., &. £. iv. 30. Burkitt, Larly Lastern Christianity, 
Lect. v. . 


142 »), CERINTHUS) cir. [CH. VIL. 


trenches on the domain of ancient Gnosticism, for 
whilst some scholars, with Marcion, consider that St. 
Paul was the true founder of Christian doctrine, others 
hold that the actual meaning of what was taught by 
Christ is found in such teachers as St. James and the 
Judaizing party of the Church alone. It must be observed 
that whenever ultra-Judaic tendencies appear they have 
the effect of diminishing the dignity of the person of the 
Redeemer. This may be seen by a cursory examination 
of Judaizing Gnosticism from the time of Cerinthus, the 
contemporary of St. John, to the latter portion of the 
second century.’ : 
Cerinthus? seems to have held the usual 
Gnostic theories of Creation, but he also 
taught that Jesus was a righteous man endowed with 
the Spirit of God. The Ebionites, further, considered 
that Jesus did not become the Christ till the Holy 
Spirit descended on Him at His baptism. The Ebionites 
professed to find this distinction between the man Jesus 
and the Aton Christ in the Gospel according to the 
Hebrews, which bears somewhat the same relation to 
St. Matthew’s, as Marcion’s Gospel does to that according 
to St. Luke. We may see the same ten- 
dency of Judaic Christianity perverted by 
Gnostic ideas in the so-called Clementine 
writings. The two works ascribed to St. Clement of 


Cerinthus. 


The Clementine 
Literature. 


1. For the question whether the Minim were Gnostics who had 
apostatised from Judaism see Friedlander, Dze worchristliche judiche 
Gnostictsmus. Herford, Chrestianity in Talmud and Midrash, pp. 365 ff. 

2. Irenaeus, aer. 1. 26. Hippolytus, vil. 21, X. 17. 

3. Bethune Baker, Early History of Christian Doctrine, p. 63. 
Hort, Judazstic Christianzty, Lect. 11. Justin (Déal. c. Trypho, 47, 48) 
speaks of some Christians who keep the Law and would enforce it on 
all, and of others, who though they observe the Law do not regard it as 
binding on all. Irenaeus (adv. Haer. I. 22) is the first to call them 
Ebionaeans. He says they hold similar views to Cerinthus and Carpo- 
crates, and regards them as heretics. Origen (¢. Ce/sum, Vv. 61, 65) 
distinguishes two classes, and says they reject St. Paul. Eusebius 
(Azst. Eccl. 111. 27) also divides them into those who hold higher and 
lower conceptions of the person of Christ ; both insisting on the observance 
of the Law, but differing on the subject of the Virgin Birth. Epiphanius 
(adv. Haer. xxix, xxx) names these two classes respectively Ebionaeans 
and Nazaraeans, but it is more probable that he is mistaken, and that 
Nazaraean is the local and Ebionaean the ecclesiastical term for the 
Jewish Christians of Syria. They existed right up to the time of Jerome, 
who speaks of them as spread over the East (4. 112, 13). 


CH. Vu. | CLEMENTINE LITERATURE, 143 


Rome, the Homilies and the Recognitions, are Christian 
romances belonging to the last half of the second century, 
probably both of them being abridgements of a lost work 
known by some such title as ‘The Travels of Peter’, 
‘current early in the third century among the Elkesaites. 
Their importance lies in the fact that they are the basis 
of the theory that the Christian Church grew out of a 
compromise between Jewish and Gentile Christians, who 
had formerly been widely separated from one another. 
This view is set aside by Dean Mansel, who says of the 
Homilies, “In truth it is only a protest of one Gnostic 
school against another,—the Ebionite against the 
Marcionite,’* and a candid examination seems to shew 
that it is the really erroneous teaching of Marcion, and 
not the supposed heresy of St. Paul, that is combated. 
The Clementine writings are the protest of the ex- 
treme Jewish party against Paulinism as perverted by 
Marcion. 

The Clementine Homilies, twenty in number, are 
probably of an earlier date than the Recognitions. Both 
works are composed with considerable literary skill; the 
scene is cast in the Apostolic age. St. Peter is made to 
dispute with Simon Magus, the father of heresy, and 
Clement, a noble Roman, is present to hear the discus- 
sions. St.James, the Bishop of Jerusalem, is represented 
as the Head of the Church, to whom St. Peter submits 
his doctrine. Although St. Paul is not obscurely alluded 
to under the name of Simon Magus, it is Marcion’s 
errors which are condemned, especially his doctrine of the 
incompatibility of justice and mercy. The Gnosticism 
of the Clementine Literature is seen (a) in the Christology 
and (b) in the doctrine of Syzygies. Our Lord is repre- 
sented as the eighth great teacher, only greater in 
degree than His seven predecessors,—Adam, Enoch, 
Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Moses. The creation 
of the world is due to the expansion of the Monad into 
the Duad, i.e. God and His Wisdom. In this way successive 
pairs are multiplied, the first or male element being 
superior down to the time of the creation of man. After 


mt. Mansel, Gnostic Heretics, p. 229. 


144 EFFECTS OF GNOSTICISM. (CH. vit. 


this the order is reversed, the second principle being the 
stronger and more true: thus Cain precedes Abel, false 
prophecy true prophecy, the Baptist the Christ, Simon’s 
false doctrine Peter’s true Gospel.? ° 


Results of Although Gnosticism was one of the 
Gnosticism in the worst dangers to which early Christianity 
Church, had been exposed, the contest had some 


(2, TAR ARON: salutary results on the development of the 


Faith. It is a noteworthy fact that the first com- 
mentator on a canonical Gospel, the first harmonist of the 
Evangelical narrative, and the first scholar to pronounce 
an opinion on the Canon, were not orthodox Christians 
but Gnostics. Heracleon, the Valentinian, wrote a com- 
mentary on St. John, to which Origen devotes much 
serious attention.2 Tatian the Encratite, the friend of 
Justin Martyr, composed the famous Diatessaron, or 
Harmony of the Gospels, the full text of which has 
now been discovered;* while despite his erroneous 
conclusions, Marcion deserves the credit of having first 
attempted to define the Canon of the New Testament. 
The impulse to explain, define, and understand the 
writings of the New Testament was due to Gnosticism, 
and to the opposition it aroused. In the face of the 
numerous forgeries, which were multiplied in support of 


the various doctrines of the Gnostic sects,* the Church © 


found it necessary to declare what writings were accepted 
by her as sacred. The most venerated names were 
pressed into the service of the heretics, and the Church 
was bound to pronounce what books she received as 
Scripture and what she rejected. A good illustration 
of the effects of Gnosticism in this direction is the 
vagueness with which Justin Martyr in the middle of the 


1. Mansel, Gnostic Heretics. 

2. Brooke, Fragments of Heracleon.. 

3. For the Diatessaron of Tatian, see Cambridge Zexts and Studies. 
Bethune Baker, History of Christian Doctrine, p. 66. Hort, Judazstic 
Christianity, p. 211. Dict. Chr. Biog., Art. Tatianus. 

4. Some of the heretical books mentioned by Eusebius are—The 
Gospel of Peter, #. #. 111. 3, condemned by Serapion, Bp. of Antioch, 
as heretical, vi. 12 ; the Gospels of Thomas and Matthias, and the Acts of 
Andrew and John, II. 25. Those mentioned in the Muratorian Fragment 
are, two Epistles to the Laodicenes and Alexandrians, forged in Paul’s 
mame to suit the heresy of Marcion. 


CH. V1l.] UNBROKEN DESCENT FROM APOSTLES. 145 


second century speaks of the ‘Memoirs’ of the Apostles, 
and the care of Irenaeus to emphasise the fact that there 
can be only four Gospels. Midway between Justin and 
Irenaeus we have the distinction drawn between canonical 
and heretical books in the well-known Muratorian 
Fragment. 
| In emphasising the necessity for unity, 
(0) The Idea = as well as for watchfulness against Docetic 
ofa : 
Catholic Church.2 error, the Letters of Ignatius draw a com- 
parison between the bishop in each con- 
gregation and Christ in the Catholic Church. The 
standpoint of Christianity as opposed to Gnosticism was 
historical tradition. The churches in different places, 
founded by Apostles or Apostolic men, had preserved 
their teaching, whilst no Gnostic doctrine could boast 
unbroken descent from the public tradition of the 
Apostles of Christ. At most the sects claimed to 
possess a secret exposition of the Faith reserved only for 
the elect, and the existence of such was indignantly 
denied by the defenders of Apostolic doctrine. Of this 
the bishop was regarded as the custodian in every 
church, a view which contributed greatly to increase the 
influence of the episcopal order. We are actually given 
an instance of a Christian of enquiring mind visiting the 
different churches to see whether the Faith delivered by 
the Apostles was the same in every place. Hegesippus, 
writing in the middle of the second century, says that 
when he was at Rome he “composed a catalogue of 
bishops down to Anicetus” and adds that “in every 


1. Irenaeus’ famous words about the impossibility of there being 
more than four Gospels are found Adv. Haer. 111. 11. The four climes of 
the world, the four winds of heaven, the four faces of the Cherubim, all 
prove that the Word of God gave us the Gospel in a fourfold form 
(rerpduoppor 7d evayyédor). 

2. Since writing this paragraph I have read Dr. Harnack’s significant 
words: ‘‘Gnosticism was the acute secularization (Verweltlichung) of 
Christianity, and it began as soon as Christianity came in contact with the 
Greek mind. At first it was not heretical simply because there were no 
standards by which to try it......: the Canon was not yet formed; 
episcopacy was not yet established ; doth arose as safeguards against 
heresy.” Warnack, History of Dogma, \., p. 162. 

3. Ep. to the Smyrnaecans, c. 8, brov bv avy 6 émloxomos, éxet rd 
®rH00s Ecrw, Wowep Srov by 7 Xpicrds Ingois éxet 4 kadodcxh éxxrnola, 


K 


146 WRITERS AGAINST GNOSTICS. (cH. Vil. 


succession and in every city that is held which is 
preached by the Law and the Prophets and the Lord.’”* 
eysitens aekedt _ Justin Martyr is the earliest Catholic 
Gnosties:; | Writer against Gnosticism. According to 
Justin Martyr, [Eusebius this Father wrote a work against 
100-165 A.D.; his contemporary, the heresiarch Marcion, 
in which he alludes to another book 
written by himself “against all the heresies that 
have existed.’ | | : 
Irenaeus, Irenaeus possessed an incalculable ad- 
cir.133—203 4.D.; vantage over his opponents in being the 
direct representative of the school of St. John. Though 
the heretical teachers declared that they taught the 
secret doctrine of the Apostles, none of them were able 
to prove that they were teaching the ancient belief 
of the Church. Irenaeus, on the contrary, at the close 
of the second century could trace his creed through 
Polycarp to St. John. To this advantage was added a 
knowledge of the various Gnostic systems. Irenaeus, 
who had lectured on heresiology at Rome, published 
his great work in five books between a.p. 182—188, 
when he was bishop of Lyons. He begins with a 
description of the teaching of a certain Ptolemaeus, 
a follower of Valentinus. After this he gives a summary 
of the uniform teaching of the Catholic Church, con- 
trasting it with the diversity of the Gnostic doctrines. 
Irenaeus naturally attaches the highest importance to 
tradition, and cites that of Rome and Asia against 
the. false traditions of his opponents. He lays much 
stress on the unity of the Old and New dispensations.® 
Irenaeus’ book was translated into Latin, probably 
before the end of the second century, as the Latin 
version was in the hands of Tertullian, the famous 
African opponent of Gnosticism.‘ 


1; Euseb., . £. tv. 22. So Bishop Lightfoot ; but the meaning 
of yevduevos ev ‘Paiyn Siadoyhv éromnodunv péxpis “Amkyrov is not very 
certain. It may be ‘‘I remained at Rome, &c.” and a reading d:arpiByy 
has been suggested by Valesius and adopted by Heinischen. (See the note 
in the Nicene and Post-Nicene series 2% /oco.) 

2. See Euseb., H. £. 1v. 11 and 18, for lists of Justin’s works. 
A fuller account of Justin Martyr will be found on p, 158. 

3. Mansel, Gnostic Heresies, pp. 240—261. 

4. This however is disputed by Hort, who dates the Latin version 


CH. VII. ] TERTULLIAN ON HERESY. 147 


Gia Aa Tertullian tries, as is his wont, to treat 
cir.160-240 a.p. the matter as a lawyer; his Prescription! 
’ against heretics being an attempt to shew 
that the heretics have no case. He brings six arguments 
forward to prove his point: 1. Perverse disputings are 
forbidden by St. Paul. 2. Heretics either resist or 
corrupt the Scriptures. 3. The Faith was committed by 
the Apostles to their successors. 4. The truth of the 
Catholic Faith is proved (a) by its unity, (b) by its 
antiquity. 5. No heretics have a line of bishops going 
back to the Apostolic age. 6. The earliest heretics 
were condemned by the Apostles. 

It will be seen that Tertullian’s method is more 
suited to win a verdict in court than to convince the 
mind of an enquirer, and this is especially manifest 
in his treatment of Scripture. ‘“‘Irenaeus,’’ says Dean 
Mansel, “ while insisting on the Church’s rule of faith 
expresses his conviction that this rule may be obtained 
by the sound independent exposition of Holy Writ, 
az well as by tradition.” According to Tertullian, 
Scripture is the property of the Church alone, and 
heretics are incapable of explaining it at all. At the 
same time Tertullian never asserts that the Church has 
an authoritative tradition differing from Scripture.” 


as late as the fourth century. The most important book of Irenaeus is the 
third, in which he states the case for the Church. See especially c. 3 on 
Apostolic tradition, c. 11 on the number of the Gospels, c. 14 where the 
idea that the Apostles taught a Disciplina Arcani is scouted. 

1. Praescrtptzo in its legal sense meant ‘‘a clause prefixed to the 
‘intentio’ of a ‘formula’, for the purpose of limiting the scope of an 
enquiry (excluding points which would otherwise have been left open for 
discussion before the ‘judex’), and at the time when Tertullian wrote it was 
used only of the plaintiff.” Bethune Baker, Hist. of Chris. Doctrine, 
p- 57, note 3. Mansel, Grostéc Herestes, p. 251. 

2. Mansel, /ézd., p. 253: this author refers to Iren., II., c. 27, 
§§ 1,23;c. 28,§ 1. Dr. Hort in hissix Lectures on the Ante-Nicene Fathers 
calls Tertullian’s de Praescriptione Haereticorum, not without justice, 
‘a most plausible and mischievous book,’”’ but its historical value is 
rather increased than lessened by the defective taste and argument of the 
author, as it appears to me to give a just idea of popular prejudice against 
heresy in the Church at the close of the second century. The reply to the 
argument of the heretics from the words ‘‘Seek and ye shall find” is so framed 
as to preclude all further enquiry. (cc. 8—11.) All philosophy is said to be 
evil ; ‘* What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?” (c. 7.) Heretics are not to 


K2 


148 WORK OF HIPPOLYTUS AND CLEMENT. (cH. vil 


The Philosophumena or Refutation of 
4. pemagee Ai all the Heresies, once ascribed to Origen, 
c is now attributed to the great Roman 
scholar Hippolytus, who, though a zealous defender of 
the doctrine of the Church, like Tertullian seems to have 
been unable to agree with Catholic practice.’ This Father 
bases his work on Irenaeus and displays great erudition in 
shewing that the Gnostic systems are mere rechauffés of 
pagan philosophy without even the merit of originality. 
But in the age of Hippolytus (a.p. 220) the great effort 
of Gnosticism had been made, and the tide had begun 
to ebb. 
Though Clement flourished a little 
fiement of before Hippolytus, his name is placed 
cir, 155-220 A.D. last on the list of Christian champions 
against Gnosticism, because to him and to 
his School we owe the phrase which gave it a death-blow. 
The weakness of the Catholic position lay in the neglect 
of philosophy, which in the ancient world was regarded 
much in the same way as we look upon scientific 
research. The Gnostic, on the other hand, tried to 
reconcile Christianity and philosophy, and endeavoured 
thereby to provide a religion for educated men. Clement 
and the Alexandrians boldly assumed the appellation 
of Gnostics, and professed to teach the true Christian 
Gnosis in opposition to the false. They based their 
knowledge on faith, and held that belief, instead of 
being (as the false Gnostics maintained) the virtue of 
the ignorant, was the means by which mankind arrived 
at the true knowledge. Clement in support of his 
position quotes the Septuagint? “Except ye believe ye 


be admitted to any discussion out of the Scriptures. (c. 15.) The notes of 
a true Church are however ‘‘brotherhood and the bond (contesseratio) of 
hospitality’. (c. 20.) The fact that the Faith is one in so many churches is 
a strong argument for its original unity. (c. 28.) The heretical sects have 
no order or discipline—‘‘ The majority of them have not even churches.” 
A man who is a bishop one day may be a deacon the next. (cc. 41, 42.) 
The treatise is characterised by the usual impetuosity of this violent writer, 
relieved by some vigorous appeals to common sense and to the religious 
instinct of mankind. 

1. Hippolytus’ position in the Church is discussed at length below 
in Chap. x1. 

2. Isa. vii. 9 (LXX), ¢dv uh micredonre ove ph ourATeE. 


\ 


CH. VIL] THE CHRISTIAN GNOSTIC. 149 


shall in no wise understand.”’ He bases his antagonism to 
the pretended Gnostics (1) on their denial of man’s 
free will and consequent perversion of the moral 
relation of man to God, (2) on their condemnation of 
the material creation, resulting in hostility to marriage 
whereby man is multiplied! In order to illustrate his 
theory, Clement, in his Stvomateis, sketches the ideal 
Christian Gnostic; the wise man enriched with know- 
ledge, yet established in the Faith. This did much to 
break the spell of Gnosticism, for when the Church 
threw open her doors to men of learning, the attractions 
of error gradually lost their power. That so formidable 
an enemy as Gnosticism should have been repulsed, 
is no small testimony to the latent vigour of early 
Catholic Christianity.’ 
: The Gnosticism of the first two cen- 
a turies of our era did not aim at being 
other than a secret creed held by the 
more enlightened members of the Church. The Gnostic 
teachers desired no more than to instruct a few privileged 
persons in their esoteric doctrines. “Towards the close 
of the third century, however, a new Gnosticism, or 
more correctly a new religion, arose in the doctrine 
of Manes.* There are two narratives of the origin of 
the Manichaean religion—the Christian, and the Persian. 
The former has come to us in an account of a disputation 
between Manes and Archelaus, bishop of Caschar in 
Mesopotamia. The date of the document is a.p. 320; 
it was written in Syriac, and is preserved in a very 
corrupt Latin version. It relates how Scythianus, a 
Saracen merchant in the age of the Apostles, devoted 
his latter days to study, and left a disciple called 
Terebinthus, who took the name of Buddas Terebinthus, 
settled at Babylon, professed to have been born of a 
virgin, and embodied the doctrine he had learned from 


I. Mansel, Guostic Herestes, Lect. XV. 

2. For Clement of Alexandria, consult Prof. Bigg’s Bampton Lectures, 
‘The Christian Platonists of Alexandria.’ See also Fisher, Hzst. of Christian 
Doctrine, p. 94. 

3. Eusebius (#. Z. vil. 31) derives the name Manes from palyouas 
and speaks of him in his short notice as a ‘‘madman named from the 
demoniacal heresy.” See note iz /oco in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. 


150 HISTORY OF MANES, | [cH. VIL. 


Scythianus in four books, which came into the possession 
of a freed slave called Cubricus. Cubricus took the 
name of Manes (the vessel),' and taught the new religion 
in Persia. As he failed to heal the king’s son he was 
imprisoned, but escaped. He then studied the Scriptures, 
and disseminated his views among the Christians, At 
last he was seized by the Persian king and flayed alive. 
The Persian documents of the eighth or ninth century 
tell a different tale, which is considered to be more 
probable than the Christian narrative. They relate 
that Manes, a member of a Persian family, had been 
carefully trained by his father, Fatak, in the principles 
of the Mandaean or Elkesaite sect of Ebionite Gnostics, 
He appeared at the court of Shahpoor I, in a.p. 242, 
but his doctrine met with no favour, so he left the 
Persian dominions and spent thirty years in missionary 
work. He returned at the end of Shahpoor’s reign, 
about A.D. 272, and won the support of Hormuzd the 
king’s brother and successor. Bahran (Varanes), who 
reigned after Hormuzd, had him flayed alive as a 
heretic. (A.D. 276.) 

The Manichaean system is pure dualism. In its 
[Eastern form it approximates to Parseeism, in its 
Western to Christianity. It teaches that there is a 
realm of darkness and a realm of light. Satan, the 
lord of the former, invaded the latter. The First Man 
was created to repel Satan, but was defeated by him 
and his angels. ‘The Living Spirit delivered him and 
vanquished the daemons. But in the warfare a portion 
of light had been absorbed by matter. This is the 
Jesus patibilis, the vids avOpemov éumabys, or Soul of 
the World. Out of the remnants of the light, which he 
jad saved, the Living Spirit made the Sun and Moon, and 
settled the First Man, the vids dvOpw7ov azraOys, in them. 
The work of these luminaries is to free the Jesus patibilis 
from Matter. The twelve signs of the Zodiac form a 
wheel with twelve buckets to collect the imprisoned 
light and to empty it into the new Moon, who in her 
turn pours the light she has received into the Sun. — 
Satan, to prevent the escape of the light, made Adam © 


1. King, Gnostic Gems, p. 42. 


CH, VII. ] THE FESUS PATIBILIS, — 15! 


and Eve, whom he tempted to sin in order to imprison. 
the luminous particles more closely in the material 
world. To assist in their liberation the Jesus impatibilis 
descended to earth in human form to instruct mankind 
as to the means of redemption. These doctrines were 
naturally bound up with the practice of asceticism. The 
slaughter of animals was forbidden to all: the more 
advanced disciples were not allowed to injure either 
plant or animal life; and to the highest order all carnal] 
intercourse, and indeed all sensual pleasure, was entirely 
interdicted. The souls of those who observed all these pre- 
cepts were at death instantly liberated from the material 
world. In the case of the rest of mankind purification 
was needed by transmigration into plants, animals, or men. 
Manes gave himself out to be the Paraclete, and did not 
accept the Old Testament, or any of the New except 
the teaching of St. Paul. The Manichaean church was 
most carefully organized. There was a sort of Pope or 
Imaun residing at Babylon, twelve magistri, seventy-two 
bishops, priests, deacons, elect, and hearers. The hearers 
ministered to the elect, who were not permitted to destroy 
even vegetable life.} 

The heresy spread with extraordinary rapidity in 
spite of the fear and detestation it inspired among 
Pagans, Christians, and Magians. The Magians in 
Persia did all in their power to destroy it by persecution. 
Diocletian (a.p. 284—305), or his successors in 308,” ordered 
the proconsul of Africa to burn the leaders of the sect. 
Almost all of the Christian emperors passed laws against 
the Manichaeans. Yet the system possessed great attrac- 
tions: that Augustine was at one time a hearer is well 
known.’ The Paulicians, so formidable in Bulgaria in 
the eighth and ninth centuries, the Children of the Sun 
in the tenth, the Euchites and Bogomili in the eleventh 


1. I have taken my account of the Manichaean system from Kurtz, 
Church History, vol. 1,, § 29. King’s Gunostics and their Remains 
should be consulted, and a most suggestive account of the attitude of the 
Manichaeans towards Christianity is found in Mozley’s Lectures on the 
Old Testament. See also Milman, Ast. of Christianity, vol. 1.3 
Rawlinson, Seventh Oriental Monarchy, ch. iv. For an account of the 
Oriental lives of Manes, Dict, Chr. Biog., Art. ‘Manes’, vol. III., p. 7936. 

2. Dr. Mason in his Persecution of Diocletian places the Marichaea* 
*dict after the abdication of Diocletian, A.D. 305. 

3. For Augustine and the Manichaeans see Chap. XIX. 


152 VITALITY OF MANICHAEISM. __[cu. vil. 


and twelfth centuries, attest the vitality of dualism in 


the Eastern empire. In Western mediaeval Europe the 


name of Manichee was full of nameless terror, the 


accusation of Manichaeism being the most serious that. 


could be made. The fear and hatred which teaching 
akin to that of Manes inspired provoked the war against 
the Albigenses,! and was the means employed to bring 
discredit upon the Knights Templars in the early part 


of the fourteenth century. Yet the very bitterest 


opponents of the system were in a measure tainted by 
its influence, and it is a matter for consideration how 
far the practice of monastic asceticism, and the doctrine 
of predestination—which divides men into two classes, 
the one born to salvation, the other to damnation—are 
due to the teaching, not of-the Apostles, but of the 
heretic Manes. 


1. Milman, Azst. Lat. Christianity, vol. V., p. 392 foll. 
& King, Guostics and their Remains, p. 401, 


.. i 
3 ; 


ae es ee 


* a ae ee, eee eee 


CHAPTER VIII. 


CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY IN THE SECOND AND THIRD 
CENTURIES. 


Tue struggle with Gnosticism resulted in the 
beginning of scientific Theology within the Church. 
The age of witnessing Christianity was succeeded by 
a period of investigation. The facts of the Gospel 
history no longer sufficed, and it became necessary 
to formulate the principles which underlay them. 
The attempts of the Gnostics to explain Christianity 
in accordance with the ideas of Greek philosophy 
or Oriental theosophy forced the orthodox doctors 
of the Church to define their belief with care and 
precision. At first, however, we cannot fail to notice 
that accurate theological definitions were extremely 
tare. The time for drawing up formal creeds stating 
the exact limits of belief was still distant, and great 
freedom of expression was permitted to the Christian 
theologians. ‘The creed of the Church was very simple, 
professing no more than a belief in the Father, Son, 
and Holy Ghost.!_ As a natural consequence there arose 
a certain confusion of thought as to the relation of 
the three Persons of the Trinity to one another. In 
addition to this, the close of the second and the first 
fifty years of the third century were characterised by 
great intellectual freedom. Philosophy had made men 
very tolerant in matters of opinion, and the Church 


allowed great liberty in the exercise of the mind 


upon the highest problems of religion. It is impossible 
not to admire the breadth of Christian liberality, 


1. For early baptismal creeds see Hahn, Symdo/e, p. 19, who refers 


his readers to Heurtley, Harmonia Symbolica, p. 106. 


154 THE IDEA OF GOD.  [eH, VILL 


which allowed such thinkers as Origen full scope for 
the most daring flights of speculation, and warmly 
acknowledged that the truths declared by the philo- 
sophers of antiquity were taught by the Wisdom of 
God. 

Such being the character of the second and third 
centuries, we shall look in vain if we expect to find 
in the theologians of the period such clear exponents 
of dogma as the writers of the fourth century. It was 
not until they had learned by the repeated misinter- 
pretations of heretics the need of extreme care in 
defining religious opinions, that the Fathers expressed 
themselves in terms of scrupulous accuracy. As yet, 
they were only feeling their way into the domains 
of theology, and their language betrays at times an 
ignorance of the pitfalls by which they were surrounded, 
At the same time the doctrine of the fourth century 
declared in terms of scientific accuracy no more than 
was generally accepted by believers between a.p. 150 
and 250, and it was merely a natural development of 
the views which were more crudely expressed in the 
earlier days of the Church. Nevertheless we must 
bear in mind that much of the language of Justin Martyr, 
Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and especially 
Origen, could not have been employed by an orthodox 
Father of a later age. . 

Among primitive peoples God is con- 

Difficulty of ceived as a being resembling man in 
expressing the ; 

idea of God. almost every respect. As long as the 

_ limitations of time and space are applied 

to the idea of God, the mind readily conceives Him 

as a personal being; but once the notions of His 

eternity, infinity and omniscience are introduced, there 

is a tendency to regard Him as a mere abstraction. 

Thus the personal God is displaced by some philo- 

sophical conception; either as identifying Him with 

and manifested in the universe—the Pantheistic notion 


—or as completely isolating Him from the visible q 
world. This difficulty was very acutely felt by the — 


Jews of the Graeco-Roman age. The Lxx, for example, 


tried to soften the anthropomorphic conception of — 
God in the Old Testament by modifying such passages — 


a 


CH. VIII.] THE TARGUM AND PHILO, 155 


as “Enoch walked with God”, “ They saw the God of 
Israel”, by their renderings ‘‘Enoch pleased God”, 
“They saw the place where the Lord stood”. 

The Targum, or Aramaic version of the Scrip- 
ture, advanced a step farther. Instead of making 
God act upon the world directly, the Targum of 
Onkelos makes God act by means of His Memra or 
Word, which thus became almost personified. This isa 
development of the idea of the Divine Wisdom, which, 
in the Proverbs and later Jewish literature of similar 
character, is often described as God’s assessor at tht 
time of the Creation. The famous passage in the eighth 
chapter of Proverbs regards Wisdom as the principle of 
the world laid down by God, and not as a creature like 
the things of the world, Wisdom coming forth from 
God being on the contrary a presupposition of the 
world’s creation.’ 

The tendencies displayed in the Lxx and 
Targums were further developed by Philo, 
the great Alexandrian Platonist of the first 
century. In his system o wy of the translators was altered 
into the Platonic ro év,2 and the Memra under the name 
of the Logos became identified with that Mind which, 
according to Greek ideas, was the manifestation of the 
Supreme God. Philo uses this word in its twofold 
sense of reason and speech. As the former, or (in 
Philo’s phrase) as the Immanent Word (Aoyos évdideros), 
it abode in God. When God manifested Himself in 
creation the Divine Logos went forth and became the 
revealed Word (Aoyos mpodopixos).? By the Logos alone 
God is known to man; it was by this means that He 
communicated with the patriarchs in the Old Testa- 
ment. Philo does not attempt a closer definition. 


Philo’s doctrine 
of the Logos. 


1. Ochler, Theology of the Old Test., vol. 1., p. 439. (Clark’s 
Theol. Library.) See Prov. viii, 22 foll., a most important passage, 
frequently quoted by the Christians as a proof of our Lord’s perfect union 
with His Father. Davidson, Theology of the Old Test., pp. 106 ff. 

2. Gwatkin, Arians, p. 12. 

Ueberweg, A7st. Przl., vol. 1., p. 230. Philo does not actually 
regard the Logos as a Being separated from God. As man’s thought is 
immanent till it is declared in words, so it is with the ‘ Logos’ or 
Mind of God. 


156 THE DIVINE NATURE OF CHRIST. [cH. vu. 


At one time he speaks of the Logos as a Being 
distinct from God under the figure of a Son, and also 
as a devtepos Geos, at another as merely the manifestation 
of the Divine Mind. This confusion of ideas was felt 
by Christian theologians, some of whom fell into the 
error of making the Logos an inferior God, whilst 
others went to the opposite extreme in declaring that 
God’s Word had no personal existence but was merely 
a manifestation of His nature. 
The Christian religion holds fast to 
sie objet object the doctrine of the spirituality and per- 
creltey fection of God, and denies that He is 
comprehensible by the human under- 
standing. It agrees with Philo in making the Logos 
the means of the revelation of the Father to man; 
but goes farther in declaring that the Word of God 
was revealed in man by Jesus Christ. Herein lies 
part of the secret of the success of Christian theology. 
With singular felicity, its theory of the conjunction 
of the Divine and human natures, each preserving 
separate attributes, enabled the mind to preserve in- 
violate the pure conception of the Deity, and yet to 
approximate it, as it were, to human interests ae 
sympathies.’ 

All who were prepared to accept Christianity recog 
nised that Christ had manifested God to man, and 
that in His Person dwelt a spirit which came direct 
from the inmost sphere of the Divine. Our Lord’s 
Divinity was as fixed an axiom of Christianity as the 
unity of God.’ The difficulty lay in defining precisely 
wherein this Divinity was situated. Was it the 
Divine Spirit abiding in the man Jesus, or was the 
Incarnation a mere figure under which God was 
revealed to man? ‘The Ebionites adopted the former 
solution of the difficulty; the Docetics the latter. 
But the Christian Church was unable to accept either 
view. She at once recognised the important truth 
that if she sacrificed the doctrine of the Incarnation 


1. Liddon’s Bampton Lectures, Lecture 11. Hastings, Dect. of the 
Bible (extra volume), Art. ‘Philo’, p. 206. Drummond, Pio Judaeus. 

2. Milman, Hest. of Christianity, vol. 11., p. 353. 

3 Gwatkin. Arians, p. 5. 


en ne ee 


CH. VIII. | THE CHRISTIAN APOLOGISTS. 157 


all was lost. The Ebionite idea of a deified man was 
a reaction to the gods of polytheism, whilst the Docetic 
theory was a step back to pantheism.! The only reply 
to Gnosticism was in the words of St. John; “The Word 
was made flesh and dwelt among us.” 
' The Apologists were in a sense the 
The Apologists first Christian theologians, as it was their 
_ the object to present Christianity to the cul- 
Christian doctrine tured world as a philosophy, and to 
°8°°* convince outsiders that it was the highest 
wisdom and absolute truth. They differed from the 
Gnostics by dwelling on the historical and essentially 
moral character, and thus they not only successfully 
appealed to the common sense of intelligent men of 
the age, but also avoided hurting the susceptibilities of 
the upholders of orthodox tradition. Their doctrine 
of the Logos, borrowed from Philo and St. John, is 
the beginning of scientific theology within the pale 
of the Church.? 
The anonymous Letter to Diognetus has 
(a) The Letter been well considered to be a suitable 
Dibguetus: introduction to the study of Greek Theo- 
logy in the Church.’ It consists of two 
loosely connected portions. Of these the first is evidently 
distinct from the conclusion, its tone being essentially 
Greek, whilst that of the second is Alexandrian. Bp. 
Westcott considers that the first part belongs to a very 
early age of the Church, not later than the reign of 
Trajan, A.D. 117. Even the concluding fragment he 
believes to be not later than the close of the first half 
of the second century. The Hellenic culture of the 
writer is obvious in his Christology, where he thus 
describes the advent of the Redeemer: “ The Almighty, 
Himself the Creator of the universe,...... has established 
in men’s hearts the Truth and the Logos, since He sent 


1, Gwatkin, Ardans, p. 8. 

2. Harnack, AZstory of Dogma, vol. 11., p. 170, Eng. Transl. See 
also Illingworth, 7ze Doctrine of the Trinity, p. 88. 

3. The Continuity of Christian Thought, by A. V. G. Allen, D.D. 
Fisher, History of Christian Doctrine, p. 68. 

4. Westcott, Azstory of the Canon, p. 88. The epistle is printed in 
Bp. Lightfoot’s Ajostolic Hathers (p. 488), where it is assigned to the 
middle of the second century. 


158 JUSTIN MARTYR. ~ (cH. vil. 


not, as some insinuate, a servant, or angel, or prince, 
but the Artificer and Creator of the universe Himself....... 
Him hath He sent to them; but for what? to terrify, 


Him He sent to men, to deliver, not to destroy.”! The 
author finds the evidence of the Incarnation not in miracles 
but in its power over men’s hearts. Notwithstanding a 
certain ambiguity of such words as “ Himself revealed 
Himself,’’? the tone of the letter recognises a distinction 
between God and the Logos.* But it has been well said 
in reference to much of the context “We probably 
ought, however, to recognise in such a passage as this, 
addressed to a heathen, a Stoic philosopher, an eloquent 
amplification of the majesty of the messenger and of 
his intimate connexion with the eternal universe, rather 
than the evidence that the writer was not familiar with 
the conception of the immanent relations of the Logos 
and the Father in the inner being of the Godhead.” 
About the same time we have in Justin 
Martyr an example of philosophy satis- 
fying its higher cravings by the adoption 
of Christianity. The account of Justin’s conversion 
presents a picture of the world of educated thought in 
the second century.» By birth a Greek, he was a native 
of Flavia Neapolis, the city founded by Vespasian on 
the site of the ancient Sychem. He began his search 
for truth in the old philosophical schools. His first 
master was a Stoic, who affirmed that a knowledge of 
God was unnecessary. This made Justin leave him, 
and go toa Peripatetic philosopher, who was so covetous 
about his fees, that his would-be disciple began to doubt 
whether he was a philosopher at all. He next applied 
to a Pythagorean, but finding that a knowledge of 
Music, Astronomy, and Geometry was necessary before 
he could attend his lectures, he betook himself to a 


(6) Justin Martyr, 
circa 100—165; 


1. Dorner, Doctrine of the Person of Christ, vol. 1., p. 261. (Clark’s ~ 


Foreign Theol. Library.) 
2. Allen, of. cz. 
Dorner, of. czt., p. 263. 
Bethune Baker, Aistory of Christian Doctrine, p. 123. 
Allen, of. cét., p. 27. 


ble a 


eas . 


CH, VIN] JUSTIN AND THE LOGOS. 159 


Platonist, with whom he fared better and considered 
himself in a fair way to attain to a knowledge of 
God. It was at this time that he met an ancient and 
venerable man who led him from Plato to the Prophets, 
from metaphysics to faith in Christ. Thus Justin, in 
his own words, “found Christianity to be the only 
philosophy that is sure, and suited to man’s wants”.} 
As a Christian, he retained his philosopher’s cloak, 
and travelled about propagating his opinions. There is 
- truth in Eusebius’ description of him as “an ambassador 
of the Divine Word in the guise of a philosopher”? It 
was at Ephesus that Justin held his famous Dialogue 
with Trypho the Jew, in which he endeavoured to prove 
that, whenever God is said in the Old Testament to have 
appeared to the patriarchs, it was in fact the Logos.’ He 
also set up a kind of school at Rome, in which he laboured 
to satisfy the doubts of the enquiring heathen. Justin was 
a very voluminous writer, but his only undisputed works 
now extant are the two Apologies and his Dialogue with 
Trypho. If we may add the Cohortatio ad Graecos, Justin 
must also have taught at Alexandria.* He engaged ina 
public disputation with the Cynic, Crescens, his chief 
heathen opponent, and this brought about his martyrdom, 
Ania. 105,° 

Justin considered the Divine Logos to have been the 
means by which God instructed the whole world. Not 
only the Jewish Patriarchs, but those Greek philosophers 
who lived according to reason, were taught by the Word 
of God. Indeed Justin is bold enough to say of the 
latter that they were Christians, even though reported to 
be atheists.© This large-minded view of the Divine 
Logos was no doubt due to the combined influence of 
Justin’s Greek birth and education and his Samaritan 
environment, which enabled him to look upon the 
ancient history of Israel and the philosophy of Greece 


1. Dialogue with Trypho, cc. ii., ill. Westcott, History of the 
Canon, pp. 96, 97. 
2. Euseb., ZH. £. tv. 11, § 8. 
Kaye, Justin Martyr, p. 39. 
Westcott, of. czz., p. 97, note 3. 
Euseb., H. £Z. Iv. 16. 
Kaye (Justin Martyr, p. 52) quotes Afo/. 1., p. 83, B. 


Pin bys 


160 JUSTIN'S DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS. [cx. vim. 


with equal impartiality. He is, in fact, the first Christian 
writer who uses the word Logos in its double sense of 
veason as applied to philosophy, and of the Word as 
applied to revelation. The Logos dwelt in Christ as it 
never did in man. Human reason is a mere o7réppa or 
piunua of the primal Logos, but in Christ the All of 
reason abode in full perfection.} 

Justin fully acknowledges the humanity of our Lord, 
and speaks of Him as perfect Man without sin, whose 
doctrine was superior to all human teaching because of 
the perfection of His nature. He dwells much on the 
facts relating to our Saviour’s life on earth, and asserts, in 
terms that recall the Apostolic writings, that we are 
purified by Christ’s blood. But his Christology neces- 
sarily lacks the precision of dogmatic formularies. In 
isolating the Father from the world, and making the 
Logos the sole means by which He is known, Justin falls 
sometimes into the error of making the Word identical 
with God, thereby leaning towards opinions afterwards 
formulated by Sabellius; on the other hand, when he 
tries to avoid this error by giving the Word a distinct 
personality (v7oatacis), he seems almost to countenance 
the hypothesis that there are two Gods. Thus the two 
tendencies, subsequently condemned as heretical, are 
manifested in this Father; and they shew that the 
greatest care would be necessary to avoid falling into 
one or the other of these opposite extremes of thought 
in the attempt to formulate the doctrine of the Logos. 
Justin, in fact, contributed little to the solution of the 
difficult problem of maintaining the divinity and per- 
sonality of the Logos without breaking the unity of the 
Godhead.* 


is Dorner, of. cit., pp. 264—266. Kaye, of. cét., p. 53. <Afol. Ie 
“ B. 
Z tH Kaye, of. ¢zt., p. 51. 
x Kaye (op. cit. » P 59) quotes Aol. 1. 74, A (41) bt aluaros 
ara TOUS WLoTEVOVTAS AUTH. 
Dorner, of. cét., p. 272. Allen, of. cé#., p. 32. Justin’s doctrine 
of the Logos is briefly this: Christianity, the only true philosophy, is found 


piecemeal among the philosophers (Aéyos omepuartxds) which is revealed in — 


its entirety in Christ. (Ago/. 11. 8, 10;) God'the Father is known to 
man as Creator, Lord and Master, but He is Unoriginate (dyévyros), 
ineffable, mysterious (agpnros), one and alone, incapable of incarnation. 


The Logos is the visible God, the subject of the O. T. Theophanies, was 


CH. VIIL.] CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA, 161 


We pass from Justin to Theophilus, the 
Mikkonofkatcah, author, according to Eusebius, of several 
A.D. 171-183; works, but known to us only by an Apology 
in three books, addressed to Autolycus.! 
His doctrine of the Logos is similar to that of Justin, 
but less carefully expressed. God put forth His Word 
making it the real principle of the world, but at the 
same time the Logos remained in God.* Dorner rightly 
points out that the Arianizing tendency of Justin dis- 
appears, but only to make way for a denial of the 
hypostasis of the Logos.? Theophilus is the first writer 
to use the term Tipids or Trinity.* 
But it was Alexandria, not Antioch, that 
oh boosie cha! became the centre of Christian theology in 
c. A.D. 155—220; the second and third centuries. The mantle 
of Philo fell upon Christian shoulders, and 
his speculations were continued by the great doctors 
who presided over the catechetical school. Pantaenus, 
the first of these, was succeeded by the learned Clement, 
a Greek, possibly an Athenian, by birth, whose greatest 
literary activity was displayed between a.p. 19g0—202. 
Clement’s works are valuable to the classical student for 
the numerous quotations from books no longer extant, and 


with the Father before all things (Dza/og. 68), but was begotten or projected 
(rpoBAnOels) like flame from fire. (Dza/. 128.) He proceeded from the 
Father in order to create, Prov. viii. 22. (Dza/. 61, 129.) Before this He 
was Adyos évdideros, now He is mpodpopixds, the Word uttered, Ps. xlv, 1. 
This distinction is not in Justin, but is found Theophil. 4d Aufzol. 1. 10, 
22. (MVicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Athanasius), p. xxiii.) 

1. Euseb., A. Z. tv. 24. 

2. épevitduervos. Cf. Ps. xlv. 1 (LXX), épevéaro 4 napdla pov Adbyor 
aya0év. Theophilus dd Autolycum, u. 10. Fisher, Ast. Christian 
Doctrine, p. 64: “‘Theophilus distinguishes the internal Logos from the 
Logos expressed (rpogopixés), The former is said to be not distinguishable 
from God’s mind and thought.” 

3. Dorner, of. czt., p. 280. 

4. Ad Autolycum, 1. 15. The three first days of Creation are types 
of the Trinity (rpeddos) of God, His Word, and Wisdom. rvéma rijs 
Tptddos Tod Beod Kal Tod Abyou av’rod Kal ris codlas. 

5. Of the school of Alexandria, Harnack remarks that it was ‘‘of 
inestimable importance for the transformation of the heathen empire into a 
Christian one, and of Greek philosophy into ecclesiastical philosophy. In 
the third century it overthrew polytheism by scientific means, while at the 
same time preserving everything of any value in Greek science and culture.” 
fist. of Dogma, i1., ch. vi. (Eng. Trans.) 


L 


162 ORIGEN.' 4182 (CH. VIII. 


for the light they shed upon the manners and customs of 
the ancient worild.'! His doctrine of the Logos was not 
unaffected by the Neoplatonic teaching of the relation 
of the voids to the absolute dv.2, Clement maintains that 
God can be known only to the Son, whose nature is the 
most holy and supreme, the most venerable, the most 
princely: nay, He is King by nature, united in the 
closest manner with the one Supreme Ruler. He how- 
ever does not distinguish the Son from the Father with 
sufficient plainness to make the Sabellian doctrine of one 
God revealed under three forms impossible. Nor does 
Clement altogether escape from the theory of the Logos 
being in a sense subordinate to the Father,’ which forms 
a very distinctive feature in the scheme of Origen. 
. Clement in fact regarded the Logos as 
Ag iss? a4, He affected human nature without any 
serious attempt to solve the question of 
His relationship to the Father. Origen, starting from 
the philosophical conception of God as the Absolute, yet 
recognising Him as known to Christians as Love, 
grappled with the difficulty and made one distinct step 
in advance of his predecessors. ‘The expressions Adyos 
évdiabetos and mpopopixos involved those who used 
them in the difficulty of having to try to discover 
when the Word ceased to be immanent and went 
forth to act. Origen boldly cut the knot by declaring 
the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son. “ The 
Father” he says “did not beget the Son and send 
Him free when He was begotten, but He ever begetteth 
1. Allen, of. czt., p. 38. The extant works of Clement are (1) 7he 
Address to the Greeks déyos mporpemrixds. (2) Zhe Pedagogwe. (3) The 
Stromateis. (4) The Outlines (brorummoes). (5) Tis 6 cwtduevos wrovoros. 
A list of Clement’s works is given by Eusebius, 4. Z. vi. 13. 


2. Neander, Hest. of Ch., vol. IL, p. 306. F isher, Hist. Christian 
Doctrine, p. 95. 

3. Dorner, of. ctt., p. 291, On Clement’s views see Héstory of 
Christian Doctrine by G. P. Fisher, D.D., p. 95. There is in Clement 
“‘no ambiguity in the assertion of the true divinity and the true humanity 
of Christ.” See also Ilarnack, of. cz¢., 11., p. 352, note 2. On the 
impossibility of knowing God see Bigg, Chréstian Platonists of Alexandria. 
Clement is said to have taught that there were two Aéyor, but this rests on 
a passage said to be from the Ayfotyposezs, quoted by Photius, the sense of 
which is, to say the least, obscure. Harnack, st. of Dogma, vol. 11. 
p- 352, Eng. Trans. See ‘also Bethune Baker, Christian Doctrine, p. 134, 
who defends Ciement’s position, 


Se sas 


CH. VIII.] MONARCHIANISM. 163 


Him” (det yevva avrov). The idea that the Logos 
existed before Creation led Origen to infer that there 
was no time when the Logos was not generated from the 
Father, and this he illustrates by the continual genera- 
tion of light from the sun.1. But at this point he was 
unable to shake off the Oriental notion that what is 
generated is inferior to its source. Origen held the 
Platonic theory that God is the highest év and is exalted 
in essence even above His voids or Adyos. Accordingly he 
accepted a view which by subordinating the Logos to 
the Father made an essential unity of God and Christ 
impossible. So far from teaching the Nicene doctrine of 
the ouoovotov he taught that the essence of the Father 
and of the Son was not the same, but that there was a 
difference of essence (étepotns THs ovaias), thus paving the 
way for Arianism. Yet it cannot be doubted that Origen 
is really explicitly against the chief Arian theories, and 
at least implicitly in harmony with the Nicene doctrine 
of the Person of the Son. Nevertheless the sympathies 
of his followers in the East in the great controversy of 
the fourth century were rather with the Arians than 
with their opponents.? Origen divides humanity into 
three classes in a manner which shews how strongly 
he felt that the Son occupied a subordinate position. 
The first class were men who were capable of under- 
standing the avtoGeos, then came those who knew Him by 
the Logos, and lastly those who know God by recognising 
the divine essences which animate the planets. The 
Logos according to Origen is absolute Truth, and 
reveals himself as far as the mind can bear the revelation 
of his nature. 

Before proceeding to an account of 
those who developed Origen’s opinions, 
it is necessary to describe the heretical tendencies which 
appeared in the East during the third century. Monar- 
chianism, or the denial of the Persons (t7roordoess) in the 


Monarchianism. 


1. Neander, Church History, vol. I1., pp. 309—312. ln /Jerem. 
fom. 1X. 4. 

2. Bethune Baker, of. cz?t., 151. 

3. Origen Zn Johan., t. 11., § 3. An excellent outline of Origen’s 
views is given in the edition of Athanasius, Vicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 
Proleg., p. xxv. 


5 ara | 
Ba. iad 


164 SABELLIUS. __ (cu. vi. 


Trinity, was a heresy which shewed itself in several 
different forms, and greatly agitated the church of Rome 
at the close of the second century.!. These three chief 
phases of this error present themselves: (1) ‘ Dynamic’ 
Monarchianism regarded Jesus Christ as a mere man 
endued with divine wisdom and power. ‘This view is 
represented by Theodotus, Artemon, and, in a sense, by 
Paul of Samosata. (2) Patripassianism, or the identi- 
fication of the Son with the Father, was taught by 
Praxeas and Noétus. (3) Sabellianism regards the 
Father, the Christ, and the Holy Spirit as mere 7pocw7a 
or characters by which God is revealed to man. The 
last named form of Monarchianism is in reality a 
development of the two first: but as it was the heresy 
most strongly combated in the Eastern Church, and as 
the subordination theories of Origen and his disciples 
were due to their fear of this error, it has been thought 
advisable to discuss it here and to reserve the heretical 
views of the two first classes of Monarchians till we 
come to the consideration of the doctrines of the 
Western Church.? ws # ’ “ge 
hg Sabellius, a presbyter of the Libyan 
Reid vat Pentapolis, taught in Rome during the 
pontificate of Zephyrinus (a.p. 198—217). He declared 
God to have been first a Monad dwelling in silence (@eds 
owwrav), but afterwards revealing Himself in creation 
as a Jeds Nadrwv. In the course of Redemption He assumed 
the three characters (7poowma) of Father, Son, and Holy 
Ghost, the Trinity being one, not of essence, but of 
revelation. The process by which the Monad revealed 
Himself was that of expansion (7Aatuopos or éxtacts) and 
the mpdcwma again became the Monad by a contraction 
(cvoroAy.) One of the most remarkable features of the 
Sabellian scheme is that the Logos is placed above the 
Father. The Logos both came forth from the Monad 
and at the same time was represented as abiding therein, 
whilst the Father was merely one of the wpoowza, or 
extensions of the Monad. The failure of Sabellianism 
was due to the fact that it recognised in the historic 
t. Tert., Ad Prax., cap. iii. Origen on John, u1. 2. . 


2, Prolegomena to Athanasius, Vicene and Post-Nicene Fathers 
p. Xxiv. 


CH. VIII. ] DIONYSIUS OF ALEXANDRIA. 165 


Christ a mere transitory exhibition of God’s power, and 
did not characterise the divine Christ as an eternal 
determination of the essence of God. Christians felt 
too great a need for a personal Christ to accept a theory 
which deprived them of His eternal presence. 

The difficulties raised by the foregoing 
theories are seen in the case of Beryllus, 
Bishop of Bostra in Arabia, who tried to 
prove that the personality of Christ was purely human 
and that He had no personal existence (kat ‘diay ovcias 
mepiypadnv) before His Incarnation. He taught that the 
divinity of Christ was a matpixy Oeorns, derived from His 
Father, and that He had no individual Godhead (édva 
Oeorns). Beryllus thus rejected the doctrine of the 
distinct hypostasis of the Logos, but endeavoured to 
avoid the position of the Patripassians by giving the 
Logos a hypostatical existeiice after the Incarnation, and 
by recognising an efflux of the divine essence rather than 
the whole deity in Christ. His doctrines were condemned 
at a synod assembled at Bostra a.p. 244, but Beryllus 
was unconvinced till Origen was invited to argue with 
him. He then acknowledged his error and is said to 
have thanked Origen for convincing him of his mistake. 
But Origen’s arguments are not themselves above 
suspicion. He says that the eternal generation of the 
Logos proves that he has an hypostasis of his own; but 
in granting the personality of the Son, Origen makes 
him inferior to the Father, and even goes so far as to 
suggest that he is a creature (cticua) in so far as he 
is Oeorrotovmevos.? 

eed Dionysius of Alexandria, the pupil of 

Dionysius Of Origen, held the position as head of the 
Alexandria. : 

fl. A.D. 247-265. great catechetical school after Heraclas, 

and succeeded him as bishop in A.D, 

247-8. He occupied the episcopal chair of Alexandria 


Beryllus of 
Bostra. 


1. Kurtz, Church History, vol. 1., § 30,7. Baur, Church History, 
vol. I1., pp. 96, 97. Dorner, Azstory of the Person of Christ, vol..1., 
p. 170. Sabellius is said to have spoken of the viordrwp. See the letter 
of the Arians to pope Alexander of Alexandria in Athanasius de Synods 11. 
Athanasius gives the opinions of Sabellius in his third discourse against the 
Arians. Bethune Baker, A7st. of Doctrine, pp. 104 ff. 

a. eusep,, 47. £. VI. 33., Baur, ops ¢27%.) Pp. 102... Kurtz, of. e@., 
§ 30, 7. Bethune Baker, of, cz#., p. 109. 


166 PAUL OF SAMOSATA, (CH. VIIL — 


till a.p. 265. From the little we know of him he 
appears to have been one of the most moderate and 
amiable of men, and to have gained the respect of all 
parties. We shall have frequent occasion to recur 
to his name, and always to record some act of 
Christian moderation. He was a learned scholar, 
his criticism of the style of the Apocalypse, to quote 
the words of Bp. Westcott, being perhaps “unique 
among early writers for clearness and scholarly pre- 
cision.” In refuting Sabellianism Dionysius was 
betrayed into the use of very incautious language, and 
said that our Lord’s essence was foreign (évov kat ovciav) 
to that of the Father. His name-sake, Dionysius bishop 
of Rome, pointed out the erroneous character of this 
doctrine, and the bishop of Alexandria withdrew his 
unhappily chosen phrases, which however were probably 
due to the fact that the bishops of Rome and Alexandria 
differed in terms rather than in doctrine, the one being 
accustomed to think and speak in Latin, the other in 
Greek.? It is satisfactory to notice that Athanasius 
defended Dionysius’s orthodoxy when the Anomoean 
Arians quoted him in support of their views.® 
Paul of Samosata _. 12 the latter days of the episcopate of 
condemned at Dionysius, the see of Antioch was occupied 
AD on %g9, by Paul. of Samosata. This extraordinary 
oe * prelate is described, in the encyclical letter 
of the synod of bishops which condemned him, in 


1. Smith and Wace, Dict. Christ. Biog., Art. ‘ Dionysius (6) 
2. Bethune Baker, of. cz¢., p. 116. 

Kurtz, of. cz¢t., § 30, 8. Dionysius wrote to the bishops of 
the Pentapolis, where Sabellian doctrine was so prevalent that, as 
Athanasius remarks, ‘“‘the Son of God was scarcely any longer preached 
in the churches.” Some of the faithful were offended at the language 
used by Dionysius, and laid their complaints before his Roman name-sake. 
In answer to thecriticisms of the Roman bishop, the ‘ pope’ of Alexandria 
drew up a treatise called ‘ Refutation and Defence’. Eusebius mentions 
the letters to the Sabellianizing bishops, and the four books addressed to 
Dionysius (7. 2. vil. 26): he is however silent as to any controversy 
between the two bishops, the knowledge of which we owe to the Athanasian 
tracts De Decretzs, vi., and De Sententia Dionysiz. See Bull, Defensio 
Fid. Nic., § 1., ch. xi, Dionysius of Rome made five charges against his 
name-sake of Alexandria: (1) that he separated the Father from the Son, 
(2) that he denied the Son’s Eternity, (3) that he named the Father without 
the Son and the Son without the Father, (4) that he rejected the term 
omoovotos, (5) that he spoke of the Son as a creature. Feltoe, Dionysius of 
Alexandria, p. 167. 


CH. vl.) ‘HOMOOUSION’ CONDEMNED. 167 


language that brings to our minds the typical popular 
preacher of later ages. He is reproached for his theatrical 
and affected style of preaching, for his popularity 
with the fair sex, for the way in which he allowed 
himself to be praised in the sermons of his partisans. 
He is said to have been attended by crowds of servants, 
and to have prided himself on the secular office of 
ducenavius. His eloquence in the pulpit was applauded 
by persons hired to lead the enthusiasm of his hearers, 
The powerful Zenobia, Queen of Palmyra, who, with her 
husband Odenatus, ruled the East, was his admiring 
patroness. Unluckily Paul was not satisfied with 
popular plaudits or feminine flattery; he aspired to bea 
theologian. His attempt to explain the mystery of the 
Trinity was disastrous. He dissociated the Father from 
the Son manifested in His human nature, regarding the 
latter as a mere man in whom the divine Logos dwelt.! 
He asserted that Christ, when on earth, progressed 
towards the attainment of divinity (€« wpoxomfs treOco- 
motncGa..)? No less than three synods about Paul were 


held at Antioch between a.p. 264—269.2 He was 


condemned as a heretic, but not dispossessed of his 
bishopric till after Aurelian’s victory over Zenobia, 
ALD. 273. 


; In condemning Paul’s doctrine, the 
piatetebessins Fathers of the synod of Antioch pro- 
use of the word nounced his use of the word opoovctos to 
Suootaios. be heretical. This word afterwards changed 

its sense, and became the very key-stone of the orthodox 
doctrine of the Trinity. Athanasius explains that Paul 
argued that, if the Father and Son were opoovcioi, there 


1. In conformity with this view, Paul, according to Eusebius (77. Z. 
VII. 30), stopped the singing of hymns to our Lord. wpadpods rods yey els 
Tov Kipiov nuav Inootv Xpicrov ratoas. 

2. Kurtz, of. cit., § 30,8; Hefele, A¢story of the Counctls, pp. 1 18— 
124; Baur, Church History, vol. 11., p. 105; Neander, Church History, 
vol. Il., pp. 327330. Athanasius, de Synodzs, c. 45. 

There is a doubt as to whether two or three synods were held 
about Paul. Eusebius only mentions two, but Hefele thinks that in %. £, 
vil. 27 he really alludes to the first and second synod. — Firmilian of 
Caesarea in Cappadocia is said in the encyclical letter to have attended 
two synods, and he certainly died on the way to that of 269. 


1638 ROMAN CHURCH NOT DOGMATIC, [c#. vii. 


was an ovaia above them to the unity of which they 
were both subordinated. 

The genius of Origen was felt long 
after his death; a great school of admiring 
disciples survived him and exercised much 
influence on Christian thought. Heraclas, his colleague 
in the catechetical school and bishop of Alexandria, 
Dionysius who filled the same see, the two great 
Alexandrian teachers Pierius and Theognostus, and the 
ascetic Hieracas, were his chief followers in Egypt. In 
Palestine and Syria what was known as the School 
of Antioch began under the influence of Lucian the 
martyr, Pamphilus, and his erudite admirer Eusebius 
of Caesarea; and Methodius of Tyre (270—300), the 
opponent of Origen, is not uninfluenced by his teaching.” 
But the most devoted admirer of the great Alexandrian 
was Gregory Thaumaturgus, bishop of Neocaesarea in 
Cappadocia. 


The School of 
Origen. 


When we turn to the West we find 

Contrast or ast ourselves in a very different atmosphere. 
Theology. We no longer are in company with active 
speculative intelligences, whose chief 

failing is that of over-subtle refinement. Authority, 
not logic, decides in theological disputes. For in the 
Western Church the question of doctrine was subordinated 
to that of discipline. The Roman bishops generally 
failed in their attempts to mediate in doctrinal disputes, 
though they succeeded admirably as administrators. 
Even the theologians Tertullian, Hippolytus and Novatian 
fought their most bitter conflicts on questions of eccle- 


1. Athanasius, De Synodis, 45; but see also Hilary (De Syn. 81, 86), 
and Basil (£7. 52 [30]), who take different views of Paul’s opinion. See 
Bethune Baker, of. cz¢., p. III. Harnack (Azstory of Dogma, vol. I11., 
Pp. 35 ff.) gives a most sympathetic account of Paul. He apparently 
considers his condemnation one of the ‘‘saddest and most momentous 
things in the history of dogma”. (IV., p. 197.) 

2. Neander, Church History, vol. I1., Pp. 483 foll. For a good 
account of Lucian’s doctrinal position, see Wicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 
Prolegomena to Athanasius, p. xxviii. Cf. Bethune Baker, Ast. Christ. 
Doct., p. 40: ‘‘ He seems to have recognised the personality of the Logos 
and his incarnation in the historical Christ, ...but did not regard the Christ as 
essentially one with the eternal God, clinging to the idea of development,... 
and he seems to have distinguished between the Word or Son in Christ and 
the immanent Logos.” 


eT fe ee 


—~  e 


CH. VIII. ] THE THEODOTI—ARTEMON, 169 


siastical organization, or administrative discipline. The 
austere party, represented in its extreme forms by the 
three above named, were strict ‘Trinitarians, while 
Praxeas was supported by the Roman bishop who 
expelled the Montanists, and Pope Callixtus was 
decidedly inclined to Monarchianism. Indeed, the 
powerful church of Rome, despite its statesmanlike 
views of church organization, was perfectly unable to 
cope with the doctrinal difficulties of the second and 
third centuries. Almost every Gnostic teacher sought 
to obtain a hearing in the imperial city; no great reply 
to Gnosticism came from the Roman Christians till the 
appearance of the Philosophumena. It was the same 
with Monarchianism. The bishops of Rome shewed 
little ability in dealing with the doctrinal difficulties. 
The factions and intrigues fostered by this incapacity 
must be described elsewhere. At present we deal only 
with the history of opinion in the Western Church. 
‘Theodotus, a leather-merchant of Byzan- 


Dynamic tium, a member of the sect of the Alogi,! 
Monarchianism: brought their opinions to Rome. The 
The Theodoti, ; 

Artemon, school consisted of Artemon, another 


Theodotus distinguished by the title of 
the ‘ Banker’ (0 tpamefirns), and several others, and was 
taunted with its devotion to mathematical and scientific 
studies. They taught that Christ was a man endowed 
with the Holy Ghost, and ‘the Banker’ went so far as 
to say that Christ, being only a man acted upon by the 
power of the Holy Ghost, was by nature inferior to 
Melchisedec, the chief of the angelic host.2 Artemon 
and his adherents maintained that they held the primi- 
tive faith of the Roman church. That such a claim, 
however unsubstantial, was actually made illustrates 
the vague character of the Christology of the time. 
Victor, bishop of Rome, however, sought to disprove 


1. Epiphanius (Adv. Haer. 54) calls him drécracua brdpxwv rijs 
mpoepnuévns adéyou alpéoews. The term Alogi was invented by Epiphanius 
for the ‘unreasonable’? men who would not accept the ‘ Logos’ Gospel. 
Salmon, Jxztro. to N.7., ch. xiii. 

2. ‘‘Euclid is laboriously measured by some of them, ... and Galen, 
perhaps, by some is even worshipped.” Euseb., &. Z. v. 28. 

~ 3. De Pressensé, Early Years of Christianity (Heresy and Christian 
Doctrine), p. 130, Eng. Transl. 


170 PRAXEAS.—NOETUS. (CH. VIII. 


this assertion by excommunicating Theodotus and 
Artemon.! 
Patipabsiad The more plausible opinions of Praxeas 
Monarchianism: and Noetus were at first favourably re- 
Eee, and ceived. Victor’s successor, Zephyrinus, is 
peuss described k and t 
escribed as a weak and ignorant man, 
greatly influenced by Callixtus, an unscrupulous ad- 
venturer who afterwards succeeded him, and even Victor 
himself was not proof against the arts of Praxeas. It 
is due to a mere accident that even the name of this 
heretic has survived. Praxeas, who had ‘confessed’ 
the faith in time of persecution, was an Asiatic; and 
on his arrival at Rome he exposed the errors and pro- 
cured the condemnation of the Montanists. He taught 
the absolute unity of God, and Tertullian maintains 
that Praxeas taught that the Father suffered in the Son. 
Both his acts and his doctrine provoked the wrath of 
Tertullian, who with his biting sarcasm reproaches 
Praxeas with having driven the Comforter into exile 
and crucified the Father.2 The heresy of Praxeas was 
branded by the name of Patripassianism.® 
Noetus, a native of Smyrna, with Cleomenes and 
Epigonus, tried to make the teaching of Praxeas less 
objectionable by retaining the unity of the Divine 
Essence but at the same time removing the unfortunate 
impression that the Father suffered. They taught that 
God changed His name according as He manifested 
Himself to the world, but although it was the Father 
who in the person of Jesus suffered on the cross, He 
could not be said to have suffered as God. The Father 
is invisible, unoriginated, immortal; but the Son, whose 
person God assumed, is the exact opposite.* Noetus 
is the forerunner of Sabellius, whose teaching leads to 
pantheism pure and simple. 


1, Euseb., H. #. v. 28. This charge occurs in an anonymous work 
called the Little Labyrinth, against Artemon, quoted by Eusebius. Mr. 
Bethune Baker (Azstory of Christian Doctrine, p. 97) rightly points out 
that ‘‘In origin Monarchianism was an ‘orthodox’ reaction (from Gnos- 
ticism) to an earlier tradition, though it was soon turned against the orthodox 
themselves.” 

2. Adv. Praxeam, c. 1%. ‘Ita duo negotia diaboli Praxeas Romae 
procuravit, prophetiam expulit et haeresim intulit, Paracletum fugavit, et 
Patrem crucifixit.” 3. Origen, Jw Zp. ad Titum, 

4. Baur, Church History, vol. U., pp. 94, 95. 


s 
SE Ee ae ee 


Sa a we eee er 


eee 
Mao lee ¥ 


CH. VIII. ] CALLIXTUS.—TERTULLIAN. I7I 


That a bishop of Rome could fall into 
bis ete 1, heresy, as in the Philosophumena Callixtus 
ishop of Rome, . : : 
A.D. 219223; 1s said to have done, naturally gave rise 

to much comment. Historical truth seems 
to compel us to own that this unlucky prelate in his 
attempt to please all parties drifted from one extreme 
to another, and ended by founding an heretical school 
of followers. He is accused (in spite of his having 
excommunicated Sabellius) of being at once a Sabellian, 
a Theodotian, and a Noetian.!. His view on the Trinity 
is summed up as follows:—God is a Spirit giving life 
to all. As such He is the Logos. The Spirit which 
became incarnate in the Virgin is personally identical 
with the Father. That which became thereby manifest, 
the Man Jesus, is the Son. Therefore it cannot be said 
that the Father as such suffered, He suffered with and 
in the Son.? 
igo: Although Tertullian’s treatise against 
c. A.D. 160-940: Praxeas is the great answer of the Western 
” Church to Monarchianism, his definition of 
the Trinity is not wholly satisfactory. Unlike Origen, 
Tertullian, not being hampered with a philosophical 
training, or, perhaps, under the influence of legal ideas, 
can conceive of one Essence shared by Three Persons. 
But his lack of philosophic culture leads him to speak 
of the essence of the Godhead being divided unequally 
among the hypostaseis. Thus he actually says that the 
Father is the whole Essence, the Son a derivation and 
a portion thereof. In the same way he explains the 
words of our Lord, ‘‘the Father is greater than I.” 
But in spite of his defects Tertullian has a very firm 
grasp of many important truths. He attaches the 
greatest weight to the reality of the Incarnation and 
to the doctrine of the Atonement. In addition to this 


1. Hippolytus, Phz/os., 1x., ch. 6. Baur, of. cz#., p. 102, note. De 
Pressensé, Early Years of Christianity (Heresy and Christian Doctrine), 
p. 145, Eng. Transl. Of course the whole question depends on the 
character of the author of the Philosophumena. Bethune Baker, of. ¢7t., 
Pp. 103, n. 

2. Kurtz, of. ctt., § 30, 5. 

3. Tertullian, ddv. Praxeam. “ Pater enim tota substantia est, Filius 
vero derivatio et portio.” 


172 NOVATIAN.—THE INCARNATION. (cH. vuIL 


he holds firmly to the essential unity of the three 
Persons of the Trinity. 
Laas Novatian, the first who caused what in 
c AD sj, later days would have been called a Papal 
schism, was an orthodox doctor on the 
subject of the Trinity, and the Novatians in the fourth 
century were vehement partisans of the Creed of Nicaea. 
In him we find the doctrine of subordination carried 
to an even greater length than in Tertullian, but he 
holds to the belief in a unity of essence? Thus the 
doctrine of the West differed from that of the East in one 
important particular. In the East undue prominence 
was given to the distinctions in the Trinity, the three 
Persons were in danger of becoming three Gods. In 
the West the unity of essence was often held to the 
exclusion of a due distinction of the Persons. Even 
Hippolytus, who wrote in Greek, comes perilously near 
to a Sabellian exposition of the Trinity in making the 
Trinitarian relation not original in the very being of 
God, but as coming into existence through successive 
acts of the Divine will.2 The permanent hold that 
Monarchianism had on the Roman church can be seen 
in the part it played in the condemnation of Origen, 
in the Dionysian controversy, in its attachment to the 
onoovo.ov formula, and in its reception of Marcellus 
and Athanasius. 

The Docetic heresy compelled the 
Fathers of the first three centuries to 
put in the clearest possible light their 
belief in the reality of our Lord’s Incarnation, and of 
His sufferings. Ignatius lays great stress on the fact 
that Christ truly suffered, and quotes a saying of our 
Lord’s after His resurrection, ‘‘ Handle me and see that 
I am not an incorporeal spirit.”* Irenaeus maintains 


Doctrine of the 
Incarnation. 


1. Dorner, Person of Christ, vol. 1.5 p. 59. Harnack, History of 
Dogma, vol. 11., p. 144. 

2. Dorner, of. ciz., p. St. 

3. Bethune Baker, of. cz¢., p. 108. 

4. Ign., Smyrn., ch. iii., AdBere pnradijoaré me kal tere Sri ovK elpt 
Saiudnov dcwuarov. Bp. Lightfoot’s note on the passage, AZostolic Fathers, 
Part II., vol. 11., § 1, p. 294. For Ignatius’ opposition to Docetism, see 
op. ctt., vol. 1., pp. 359, 360. 


CH. VIII.] THE HOLY SPIRIT, 173 


the necessity of the Incarnation of the Logos, not only 
in order that he should be visible to all flesh, but that 
he might shew himself their king.’”’? Tertullian devotes 
an entire treatise (de Carne Christi) to the necessity of 
the Incarnation. But it is not requisite to multiply 
proofs on this point: the only apparently conflicting 
testimony by an orthodox Father being found in 
Origen’s suggestion, that our Lord shewed Himself to 
each man as he was capable of beholding Him. In 
this way Origen considers that the Transfiguration 
ought to be explained.? Both Tertullian and Clement 
of Alexandria assert that, in accordance with the great 
Messianic prophecy in Isaiah liii., our Lord’s human 
form was mean and unsightly.’ 

56 In the Church of the second and third 
The Holy Spirit. centuries the belief in the Divine Person- 
ality of the Holy Spirit was acknowledged, though 
seldom expressed. There has been at all times a tendency 
to ignore the important doctrine that the Spirit has a 
work and place in the Blessed Trinity of equal dignity 
with that of the Father and the Son. The fact that 
Baptism was administered in the name of the Father, 
Son, and Holy Ghost, as well as the use of the term 
Trinity after the time of Theophilus of Antioch, are 
sufficient proofs that the office of the Spirit was 
recognised by the Church. But the language of the 
Fathers on this subject often betrays a certain confusion 
of thought. The recognition of the truth that the Logos 
was the Second Person of the Trinity led to an almost 
inevitable tendency to confound him with the Spirit of 
God, who was universally acknowledged to have spoken 
by the Prophets. Justin Martyr, for example, sometimes. 
attributes the inspiration of the ancients to the Son and. 
sometimes to the Spirit. Irenaeus endeavours to dis- 
tinguish the work of the Spirit from that of the Logos ;. 


1. Irenaeus, bk. iii., c. 9. 

2. Neander (Church History, vol. 11., p. 373) quotes Contra Celsum, 
fv. 16: ut vorioarres Tas ws év loroplats Aeyomwévas weraBodds 7) meTaUophPuoas 
rod “Inood. And Contra Celsum, VI., c. 77: Td wapaddAdtrwv Tod gapaTos 
avrod mpos Tots épdot Suvardy Kal dua Toro Xphotwov ToLoUTO Paivduevoy, 
Omotov er éxdoTw BrémecoO cu. 

3. Clem. Alex., Paedagogus, 1.1. Tert., Adv, Marctonem, Il, 7s 


oe 


174 THE HOLY SPIRIT. [CH. VIIL” 


the one he calls the Energy, the other the Wisdom of 
God. Tertullian admits the doctrine that the Spirit has 
His due place in the Trinity—‘‘tertium numen divinitatis, 
et tertium nomen maiestatis,” but, though as Montanist he 
believed in the dispensation of the Paraclete, he does not 
seem fully to have grasped the real significance of His 
Personal Being. He speaks, for example, of the pre- 
existent Christ as the Spirit of God. Hippolytus and 
Novatian follow Tertullian, and Lactantius as late as 
the beginning of the fourth century calls the Holy Spirit 
a sanctificatio proceeding from the Father or the Son. 
In Origen the question is raised as to whether the Holy 
Spirit is or is not a creature, and there was in his time 
a growing tendency to associate the idea of createdness 
with the Holy Ghost. As Neander justly remarks, ‘The 
Fathers alternated between the doctrine of the Holy 
Ghost being a part of the Trinity and a good gift of 
God through Christ,”—a state of mind not unknown 
among modern preachers and writers. So little however 
was the doctrine of the Holy Spirit a matter of con- 
troversy, that the Council of Nicaea was satisfied with 
the mere expression of belief in the Holy Ghost.} 
Montanism was a movement in the 
eet ani the might direction in so far as it laboured to 
Spirit. bring the work of the Spirit in the Christian 
body into more prominence in men’s 
minds, and revolted against the hard legalising tend- 
encies of the Roman church. The Montanists were 
accused of identifying their founder with the Paraclete, 
but the testimony of the Fathers on this point is 
extremely contradictory, and Tertullian in his treatise 
against Praxeas, written after he had become a Mon- 
tanist, is orthodox on the subject of the nature of the 
Holy Ghost.? . 


1. See Kaye, Justin Martyr, pp. 54,55. Neander, Church History, 
vol. I1., p. 337. Harnack, Azstory of Dogma (Eng. Transl.), vol. I1., 
pp. 261 (note), 266 (note), and 357 foll. Fisher, Azst. of Christian 
Doctrine, pp. 95 and 109. Origen, De Priénctpizs, 1. iii. Tertullian, Adv. 
Praxeam. Consult Dr. Swete, Hzstory of the Doctrine of the Procession of 
the Holy Spirit, cc. 1.—111., and article ‘Holy Ghost’, D. C. 8. Bethune 
Baker, Hist. Christian Doct., pp. 197 foll. 

2. De Soyres, Montanism and the Primitive Church, Book 11. (The 
Tenets of Montanism.) 


Ae Rah, ree] Pay ee ai : 
i, OE 


CH, VuIl.] FREE WILL 175 


The Gnostics generally denied the 
personal responsibility of man, and the 
freedom of the will, by their division of 
humanity into pneumatic, psychic, and carnal natures. 
In consequence of this tendency, the doctrine of Free 
Will was strongly maintained by the orthodox Fathers. 
Justin Martyr teaches that man was created a rational 
being, able to choose the truth and thereby to secure his 
own happiness, “for” he says “it is the property of 
everything created that it is capable of virtue and vice” 
(kaxias Kat apeths Sextixov elvac), and that on the 
possession of this power of volition depends the responsi- 
bility of men and of angels. Clement of Alexandria 
teaches that man being made in God’s image is con- 
sequently capable of good, and his conscience re-echoes 
the commandments of God. God’s law is written in 
men’s hearts, and thus Christianity is an advance upon 
Judaism, because Christians obey willingly, the Jews 
by compulsion. There is no trace in Clement’s theology 
of the doctrines of Original Sin or of the fall of man in 
Adam. He looks on Christ as the true head of humanity, 
and on man’s will as free to follow out the Divine 
purpose.! Origen’s view is somewhat different, being 
based on his theory of the pre-existence of the soul. 
He thought that, as all spirits come from God, all 
differences of nature are the result of free will. Though 
the Son of God is the universal brightness of His glory, 
His scattered beams were diffused over all rational 
creation, and therefore all partook of God’s enlighten- 
ment. Free will was, in a sense, the principal cause 
of sin, for (as Origen taught) evil exists as soon as 
desire for individual existence arises in any rational 
being.” 

As usual, the Western teaching on this subject 
differed slightly from that of the East, and in Tertullian 
we discover the germs of the Augustinian doctrine, 
that evil is inherent in man. He is the first Christian 
writer who advances the doctrine of the propagation 


Doctrine of 
Human Nature, 


1. Allen, Continuity of Christian Thought, p. 48 foll. 

2. Neander, Church History, vol. 11., pp. 340—382. Harnack 
(History of Dogma, Eng. Transl., vol. IL, p. 214) gives the view 
of human nature and its responsibility taken by the Apologists. 

( 


176 REDEMPTION. [CH. vuI. 


of the corruption of human nature, which is inseparable 
from his theory of the propagation of souls. Tertullian 
taught that all souls were descended from Adam and 
inherited the contagion of his sin. The corruption of 
our nature has, he says, become a second nature. He 
even went so far as to maintain the connexion of an 
evil spirit with every man from his birth, and actually 
brings forward the Daemon of Socrates in confirmation 
of his opinion. It is here that the gloomy theology 
of Africa with its narrow and sour illiberality contrasts 
most unfavourably with the generous teaching of the 
Greek and Alexandrian Christians. 

Docetic Gnosticism, by denying the 
reality of the Passion and Death of the 
Saviour, excluded all belief in the efficacy of the Cross, 
to which the Catholic Fathers naturally attached the 
deepest significance. They regarded the Death of our 
Lord as a voluntary offering for the sin of the world, 
and as a ransom by which man was redeemed by God. 
They did not, however, hold the view popular with 
theologians since the days of St. Anselm, that the 
Death on the Cross was a satisfaction to Divine Justice, 
but considered that our Saviour ofiered His life as a 
ransom to Satan, the conqueror of the human race. 
“The Word and very Man,” says Irenaeus, “in re- 
deeming us by His own blood gave Himself a redemp- 
tion for those who were taken captive: and though 
sin had dominion over us unlawfully, . . . the» Word 
of God, in making us His own disciples, and not coming 
short of His own righteousness, shewed Himself just 
in dealing with Apostasy herself, redeeming from her 
that which was her own, not by violence, as she 
originally had dominion over us,... but by persuasion,” 
&c. Irenaeus is however quite free from any idea 
that the devil has any real right over man, or that 
God accomplished the work of redemption by any act 
of deceit.? | | 


Redemption. 


1. Tertullian, De Anima; see Neander, Planting of Christianity 
and Antienostikus, vol. 1., p. 463. | 
__ 2, Harnack, of. cét., vol. I1., pp. 290 and 365 (tor Origen’s doctrine) ; 
Fisher, of. cet., p. 86. The passage paraphrased in the text is Irenaeus 
Ffaeres. v. 1: ‘*Quoniam Verbum potens, et homo verus, sanguine 


; 
os 
> 
a3 
a 
.| 
‘ 


CH. vil.) BELIEF IN THE MILLENNIUM. 177 


The prophecy that the martyrs and 
| those who had not worshipped the Beast 
should rise from the dead and reign on earth with Christ 
for a thousand years’ was interpreted literally, and had 
a very powerful hold on the Christian mind, especially 
in Asia. It was held by Papias, Polycarp, Irenaeus, 
Justin Martyr, and the Montanists. The Alexandrian 
Fathers had a strong objection to these views, con- 
sidering them to be gross and sensual in the extreme. 
Clement, for example, is of opinion that the idea 1s 
irrational because Christ is spiritually here in all His 
fulness. Eusebius quotes from Caius, who endeavoured 
to disparage this Millennial teaching by making the 
heretic Cerinthus its author.’ But the great opponent 
of Millennial hopes was the wise and amiable Dionysius 
of Alexandria. Nepos, a bishop of the nome Arsinoe 
in Egypt, had composed a work, called ‘the Refutation 
of the Allegorists’ ("EXeyxos Tav adAnyopioTaov), against 
those who denied the litera! interpretation of the Millen- 
nial promises in the Apocalypse. A party was formed, 


Millenarianism. 


suo rationabiliter redimens nos, redemptionem semetipsum dedit pro his, qui 
in captivitatem ductisunt. Et quoniam injuste dominabatur nobis apostasia, 
et cum natura essemus Dei omnipotentis, a/enavit nos contra naturam, 
suos proprios nos faciens discipulos, potens in omnibus Dei Verbum; et 
non deficiens in sua justitia, juste etiam adversus ipsam conversus est 
apostasiam, ea quae sunt sua redimens ab ea, non cum vi, quem- 
admodum illa initio dominabatur nostri, ea quae non erant sua insatiabiliter 
rapiens, sed secundum suadelam, quemadmodum decebat Deum suadentem, 
et non vim inferentem, accipere quae vellet; ut neque quod est justum 
confringeretur, neque antiqua plasmatio Dei deperiret.” 

I. Apoc. xx. 4. 

2. Allen, of. cét., p. 66. 

3. Harnack, of. czt., vol. 11., p. 300. Dr. Harnack regards the 
success of the learned Eastern Fathers over Chiliasm as a significant proof 
that the laity were falling under the tutelage of the clergy. ‘‘ The religion 
they understood was taken from them (the ‘simplices et idiotae’), and they 
received in turn a faith they could not understand ; in other words, the old 
faith and the old hopes decayed of themselves and the authority of a 
mysterious faith took their place. In this sense the extirpation or decay of 
Chiliasm is perhaps the most momentous fact in the history of the 
Christianity of the East.” Eusebius (2. &. 111. 28) quotes from the 
Disputation of Caius, who does not say plainly that Cerinthus was the 
author of the Apocalypse, but that he found support for his views in 
revelations, which he pretends were written by the great Apostle. For 
Caius see the note on Euseb., H. &. 11, 25,§ 7 in the Nicene and Post- 
Nicene Fathers. 


M 


178 DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. [cH. vil. 


after the death of Nepos, headed by Coracion a presbyter, 
and it appeared probable that a serious schism would 
distract the Church. Dionysius, with the Christian 
forbearance which characterised him, went in person 
to endeavour to convince Coracion and his adherents. 
He conciliated all by the respect with which he spoke 
of Nepos, and ended by persuading Coracion to confess 
his error. Dionysius argued that the Apocalypse was 
not the work of John the son of Zebedee, but of John 
the Presbyter, who is mentioned by Papias.1 

The belief in a Millennium was a survival of the 
old Jewish expectation of a visible kingdom of the 
Messiah, but it contained the germs of two important 
ideas. One is that the reign of Christ on earth is not 
a mere chimera, but an end for which all Christians are 
bound to strive. The other is that the Millennium as 
foretold in the Apocalypse is a time for preparation 
for the second Resurrection. This paved the way for 
the theory of an intermediate state after death. The 
Montanists held firmly to the belief of a purification 
of the soul after death, and even Clement of Alexandria 
speaks of a purifying fire for those who have lived ill. 
From this germ the mediaeval doctrine of Purgatory 
was destined to grow.’ 

The doctrine of the Resurrection was 
generally stated at this time in a material- 
istic form, though the Fathers of Alexandria as usual take 
a spiritual view of this great mystery. Clement held 
that “the resurrection was the standing up of all things 
to immortal life; it was not the same body, but a 
reclothing in some higher form of the purified spirit.”® 
Origen, in his reply to the taunt of Celsus* that the 
Christian hope of rising out of the ground at the last 
day is one worthy of worms, enlarges upon St. Paul’s 
words, “this corruptible must put on incorruption,” 
and in another place he dwells upon the change which 


The Resurrection. 


1. Euseb., A. &. vil. 24—25. Feltoe, Dionysius of Alexandria, 
pp. xxv, 106. 

2. Neander (Planting of Christianity and Antignostikus) quotes 
Tertullian, De Anima. See also his Church History, vol. U., p. 403. 

3, Allen, of. czt., p.67.. Dr, Allen quotes Stvomatezs, IV., ec, 22, 26, 

4. Origen, Contra Celsum, iv. 57, Vv. 19. 


CH. vill.) POINTS OF DOCTRINE UNSETTLED. 179 


the body undergoes at the time of resurrection. 
Tertullian however draws a distinction between the 
heathen doctrine of the immortality of the soul and 
the Christian teaching concerning the resurrection of 
the body. 


The above short sketch of the doctrines held in the 
early days of the Church shews at least how many 
points remained as yet unsettled. The work of the 
fourth and fifth centuries was to give these a dogmatic 
shape. But the precise language and clear definitions 
of the succeeding age was purchased with intestine 
discord, and the loss of liberty of thought. The century 
in which men sat at the feet of the great Origen was 
followed by more timorous days in which his bold 
imaginings were branded as heresies. 


% Tertullian, ddv. Marcionem, v., c. 9 ff. 


CH APT ERaiitn 


CHRISTIANITY AND OTHER RELIGIONS AND 
PHILOSOPHIES. 


As we approach the time when the Roman empire 
united itself to the Church, we may fairly enquire 
into the cause of the combination of two organizations 
hitherto, to all appearances, opposed to one another. 
The triumph of Christianity by its complete absorption 
of all mental and religious activities in the Roman 
world is one of the most remarkable facts in the history 
of mankind. Our astonishment is increased when we 
consider how speedily a highly civilised and educated 
age changed from Hellenism to Christianity. The con- 
version of the nations which overran the Roman empire 
in the fourth and fifth centuries, though no doubt more 
rapid, was often due either to actual force or to an 
appeal to the superstitious terrors of barbarians. But in 
the first three centuries it is undeniable that many of the 
most enlightened and cultivated men were led after 
serious consideration to embrace the new faith. Con- 
sidering that mankind is always most conservative in 
the matter of religious prejudices, Christianity appears to 
have advanced with giant strides between the accession 
of Marcus Aurelius and the death of Julian. In a.p. 161, 
when Hellenic philosophy mounted to the throne of the 
world in the person of the former emperor, Christianity 
had made comparatively little progress. Two centuries 
later, when Julian, who in character was not altogether 
unlike Marcus Aurelius, tried to restore the ancient 
religion, the Empire was so completely Christianized, 
that the votaries of Hellenism, nay, the very philosophers 


CH. Ix.] RELIGIOUS INFLUENCES. 181 


and the priests, shewed no great zeal to recover their 
lost influence. At the end of two years Julian was 
compelled to acknowledge that Christ had conquered. 
This is the more remarkable, when we contrast the slow 
progress of Christian ideas in the ancient civilizations 
of India and China. We are consequently led to con- 
sider whether Hellenism and Christianity had not 
much in common; whether, in short, Greek philosophy 
was not, like Judaism, a road which led men to the 
Gospel. 

The object of this chapter is to give an outline of the 
attitude assumed by the supporters of Hellenic philo- 
sophy towards the teaching of the Christian Church. 
How the Roman Government tried to extirpate Chris- 
tianity by force, has been already shewn; we shall now 
describe the attempts to crush the Faith by argument. 
In the former struggle the martyr confronted the magis- 


trate; in the latter, Greek philosophers disputed with 


the doctors of the Church. 

The Christianity of the second and third centuries 
expressed in many points the popular feeling of the age. 
In a correct picture of the Church and Roman society, 
neither the virtues of the one nor the vices of the other 
appear in glaring contrast. The Christians were not 
without their faults, nor the Roman world without its 
merits. From time to time the believers are found to 
exhibit signs of human frailty, nor had virtue utterly 
deserted the heathen population of the Empire. That 
many good impulses existed among the latter the very 
success of Christianity sufficiently attests. The progress 
of the Faith was largely due to the fact that it supplied 
a want widely felt during the last ages of Hellenic 
Heathenism. To discover the nature of that want it is 
necessary to survey the religious and moral aspirations 
of mankind during the first three centuries of our era. 
Christianity did not gain its triumphs in an irreligious 
age. On the contrary, the religious instincts of humanity 
were especially active in the second and third centuries 
of our era. A craving for a personal relation with God 
was characteristic of the period. Although the ancient 
gods of Greece and Rome might be neglected, or 
regarded as merely ancient embodiments. of physical 


182 DESIRE FOR MONOTHEISM. (CH. 1X. 


phenomena, the tone of society was neither sceptical nor 
irreverent. On the contrary, a strong desire for personal 
religion made many of Greek or Roman birth turn to the 
religions of the East in order to obtain that which they 
sought in vain in their ancestral forms of belief. The drift 
of Philosophy had been to exhibit the need of Monotheism. 
The conquests of Alexander the Great and the extension 
of Roman dominion had substituted for nationalism the 
conception of a consolidated empire embracing all the 
civilised world. The troubles of the second and third 
centuries led mankind to feel the need of one personal 
God. Consequently the religious cults popular in the 
Roman empire displayed a general desire for a faith at 
once monotheistic, catholic, and personal.* 

We may first notice in this connexion 
the worship of Serapis, which was ex- 
tremely popular in the second and third 
centuries of our era. This mysterious god was intro-. 
duced from Pontus into Alexandria by Ptolemy I. shortly 
after the foundation of the city. Tacitus gives the 
legend of the discovery of the god at some length, but 
adds that some thought that Ptolemy III. brought his 
image of Serapis from Selucia.? A magnificent temple 
was raised to his honour in a district of Alexandria 
called Rhacotis. The building resembled an Indian 
pagoda rather than a Greek or Egyptian shrine, and 
stood on a vast mound constructed for the purpose. 
Within was the colossal figure of the god, formed of plates 
of all the metals, artfully joined together to typify the 
harmonious union of different elements in the fabric of 
the universe. The consort of Serapis was Isis—not the 
Egyptian deity, but a goddess resembling the Ephesian 
Diana® and worshipped as the type of Nature in 
subjection to the Sun, with whom Serapis has been 
frequently identified. When, however, the god was first 
introduced into Egypt he was certainly regarded by the 


Worship of 
Serapis and isis. 


1. Dill, Roman Society from Nero to Marcus Aurelius, pp. 289 ff. 

2. Tacitus, 7st. 1v. 83,84. Mahaffy, The Empire of the Ptolemies, 
p.72. Dill, of. czt., pp. 560 ff. ) 

3. Macrobius (1. 20) says ‘‘ the body is covered with continuous rows 
of udders, to declare that the universe is maintained by the perpetual 
nourishing of the earth or nature.” 


CH. 1X.] WORSHIP OF SERAPIS. 183 


Alexandrians as Aidoneus or Dis, the god of the lower 
world, and his attributes suggest him to have been none 
other than the Indian god Yama, Lord of Hell. His 
origin was, however, in part forgotten by his worshippers 
in later times, and he was adored as the one and only 
god.1_ At Alexandria Serapis was worshipped with the 
most frantic devotion, and speculations as to his nature 
occupied the chief attention of the philosophers. Nor 
was the cultus confined to Egypt, it extended to the 
West, and was long practised in Gaul.? 


The most remarkable identification of Serapis is 
found in a letter of the emperor Hadrian preserved by 
Vopiscus in his Life of Saturninus. Hadrian’s words are: 
“Those who worship Serapis are likewise Christians; 
even those who style themselves the bishops of Christ 
are devoted to Serapis. The very Patriarch (the Jewish. 
nast of Tiberias) is forced by some to adore Serapis, by 
others to worship Christ. There is but one God for them 
all. Him do the Christians, Him do the Jews, Him do 
the Gentiles all alike worship.”® It has even been 
suggested that the face of the image of this divinity, so 
full of grave and pensive majesty, gave Christian artists 
the model for the conventional representation of our 
Lord, and it is not altogether impossible that some of 
the semi-pagan Gnostic philosophers saw in Serapis a 
prototype of Christ, the Lord and Maker of all, and 


I. This is borne out by the talismanic gems bearing figures of Serapis 
with such inscriptions as els {av Oeds. 


2. Tacitus, Hzs¢. tv. 84: ‘*Deum ipsum multi Aesculapium, quod 
medeatur aegris corporibus; quidam Osirin, antiquissimum illis gentibus 
numen; plerique Iovem, ut rerum omnium potentem; plurimi Ditem 
patrem insignibus, quae in ipso manifesta, aut per ambages coniectant.” 
Dill, of. cét., 563 ff.: “‘ Although it was generations before the worship 
won its way, in the face of fierce persecution, to an assured place 
in Rome, its first appearance coincides with the decay of the old 
religion, the religious excitement in the beginning of the second century 
B.c., and the immense popular craving for a more emotional form of! 
worship.” p. 568: ‘‘ Already in Nero’s reign Lucan could speak of Isis 
and Osiris as not only welcomed in the shrines of Rome, but as deities of 
all the world.” 

3. Dean Milman (Hist. of Christianity, vol. 11.) thinks however 
that Hadrian is speaking satirically of the universal worship of wealth. 
Serapis as a god of the lower world represented Plutus, Vopiscus, 
Saturninus, c. ll. 


184 MITHRAS. (cH. Ix, 


Judge of quick and dead. Be this as it may, the devo- 
tion for Serapis, both in Alexandria, the intellectual 
capital of the Empire, and throughout the Roman world, 
is a sign of a wide-spread longing for a universal 
worship of one God.! 

According to Plutarch the worship of 
the Persian god Mithras was introduced 
into the West by the captives brought by Pompey to 
Italy after his victories over the Cilician pirates, B.c. 67. 
The new cult rapidly became popular, and has left its 
traces in all parts of Europe. It was in reality an 
adaptation of the teaching of the Zend-avesta to Western 
ideas. Mithras, in the Zoroastrian religion, is the first- 
born of Ormuzd, the chief of the seven Amshaspands, 
whose abode is in the Sun. The Greeks however 
identified the Persian Spirit with their more material 
deities Phoebus and Hyperion. There were many 
reasons for this form of Sun-worship becoming a 
universal religion in the Roman world. The Sun was 
already adored by all nations, from Britain to the far 
East. We find philosophers like Macrobius regarding 
all gods worshipped by civilised men as various 
forms under which they honoured the Sun. Even 
Christians, like Origen, dared not deny that the Sun 
was a rational being endowed with free will.? It is 
possible therefore that the attempt to install the god of 
Emesa in Rome and to unite him in marriage with the 
Palladium was something more than a mad freak of the 
emperor Heliogabalus. This emperor (as Priest of the 
Sun) may have seriously aimed at establishing a worship 
of his deity which should include all other forms of 


Mithraism. 


1. I have taken my account of Serapis from King’s Gnostics and 
thetr Remains, pp. 158 foll. For the worship of Isis see Apuleius, A/e¢am. 
XI.; the Hibbert Lectures (1879) by Le Page Renouf; and Dill, o/. céz., 
p- 572. It seems to have evoked the sympathy of sufferers in a manner not 


unlike the Christian religion. Many a stricken spirit found comfort in the: 


adoration of Isis. ‘*She does not forget” says Plutarch ‘‘the sorrow 
which she endured, nor her painful wanderings, but ordains most holy rites 
in memory of her sufferings, for instruction in piety, and for the comfort of 
men and women oppressed by similar misfortunes.” Plutarch, de /szde et 
Ostrz, 27. 

2. Origen De Principits, bk. 1., c. 7. He quotes Job xxv. 5 to 
shew that the stars are intelligent beings and subject to error. 


oe Pee eer 


Ss 
— Tn - 


CH. IX. ] MITHRAIC SACRAMENTS. 185 _- 


religion.1 The Mithraic religion had rites so closely 
resembling the two great Christian ordinances, that 
both Justin Martyr and Tertullian? declare them to bea 
diabolical imitation of the Sacraments. The votaries of 
Mithras, in common with the Christians, recognised the 
need of atonement, and held the doctrine of a future 
life. Augustine, writing when Mithraism was in its 
decline, informs us that a priest ‘“‘of the fellow in the cap” 
(illius Pileati, viz. Mithras) used to say ‘‘our capped one 
is himself a Christian”’.* But the resemblance between 
the two faiths is, in truth, one of very superficial 
character. The celebration of the Mithraic eucharist 
was attended at times with the performance of darker 
rites, nor was human sacrifice unknown in connexion 
with its orgies. This may perhaps account for the 
popular belief that the Christians met in secret fora 
similar purpose. As wide a gulf severs the Mithraic 
baptism of the Taurobolium from that of the Christian 
laver of regeneration. The recipient of the horrid 
Mithraic rite stood in a pit covered with planks pierced 
full of holes. A bull was then slain and the blood was 
allowed to fall into the pit and drench the man below. 
As the bull was the symbol of life, the lustration of the 
Taurobolium was considered to have unlimited efficacy. 
The desire for purification and regeneration so vividly 
expressed by this ceremony shews that the worshippers 
of Mithras were partly conscious of a truth which found 
its full expression in Christianity.® 


1. ‘* Bringing together in his temple the Fire of Vesta, the Palladium, 
the Ancilia, and all the other most venerated relics; and moreover the 
religion of the Jews and Samaritans, and the devotion of the Christians,” 
says Lampridius. King, Gmostics and their Remains, p. 119. 

2. justin Martyr, dol. 1. 62,66. Tertullian, de Baptismo, c. 5. 

3. Origen, Contra Celsum, vi. 22. . 

4. King, Gnostics and their Remains, p. 119. ‘* Usque adeo ut ego 
noverim aliquo tempore illius Pileati sacerdotem solere dicere ‘Et ipse 
Pileatus Christianus est’.” Aug., Hom. tx Joh., vu. 6. Bigg, Zhe 
Church’s Task under the Roman Empire, Lect. I. 

King, Gnostics and their Remains, part 11., ‘The Worship of 
Mithras and Serapis.’ Cumont, Monuments Kelatifs aux Mystéres de 
Mithra, ‘It is perhaps the highest and most striking example of the last 
efforts of paganism to reconcile itself to the great moral and spiritual 
movement...towards purer conceptions of God, of man’s relations to Him, 
and of the life to come. It is also the greatest effort of syncretism to 
absorb ... the gods of the classic pantheon in a cult which was almost 


186 ROMAN AND HELLENIC RELIGION. [cu. 1x. 


it The deities of Rome presented little 
Religion of Rome attraction to their own worshippers and 
none to the outside world. The hard 
practical nature of the Roman people was little sus- 
ceptible to religious impressions. The national gods 
reflected the national character. They were mere frigid 
impersonations of civic virtues and the useful arts of life. 
Their worship tended to develop the sense of citizenship 
without in any way satisfying man’s spiritual instincts. 
It has been truly observed that the religion of Rome 
was purely selfish, being simply a means of obtaining 
prosperity, averting calamity, and reading the future. 
The virtues inculcated by the old Roman religion 
disappeared with the growth of luxury in the latter days 
of the Republic, and with them the power of the gods of 
Rome. ‘The worship with its ceremonial and priesthood 
remained, but its influence had long disappeared.} 

The religion of the Hellenic nation had even less 
power to satisfy the moral or spiritual cravings of the 
heart. Its mythology, the creation of an unbridled and 
irreverent fancy, attributed the basest motives and the 
worst actions to the gods, and is an evidence of the lack 
of seriousness inherent in the Greek mind. From a very 
early date the popular religion excited either the con- 
tempt or hostility of the philosophers. Pythagoras 
(born about 582 B.c.) is said to have declared that he 
had seen both Homer and Hesiod tortured in Hell on 
account of the fables they had invented about the gods. 
His younger contemporary Xenophanes remarked that 
each nation attributed to the gods its distinctive national 
type.2. The very existence of the popular gods was 
questioned by many philosophers, the general opinion 
among them being that there was really but one supreme 
God, but they were not agreed as to whether he had 
an existence apart from the universe or was simply the 


monotheistic.” Dill, of. cét., p. 585. Renan suggested that if Christianity 
had succumbed, Mithraism might have become the religion of the Western 
world. 

1. Lecky, Aestory of European Morals, vol.t.,p. 176; ‘*The Roman 
religion, even in its best days, though an admirable system of moral 
discipline, was never an independent source of moral enthusiasm.”” 

2. Lecky, of. czt., p. 109. Ueberweg, “story of Philosophy, vol. 1., 
p. 52. (Eng. Transl.) Clement of Alexandria, Stvom., VII., p. 711 b. 


CH. Ix.] MYSTERIES. 187 


anima mundi, the all-pervading spirit of nature. The 
traditional religion of Greece is an example of a popular 
faith continuing for centuries after being separated from 
the moral and intellectual aspirations of the educated 
part of those who professed to hold it. 

On one side only did the religion of 
Hellas approximate to Christianity. In 
the Mysteries, especially those of Eleusis, we recognise 
an attempt in the direction of personal religion. ‘They 
were the worship not of the gods of the sky, but of those 
of the lower world, a Triad consisting of a god and two 
goddesses, Pluto, Demeter, and Koré or Persephone. 
The Mysteries were guarded with jealous care by secret 
societies, and were known only to the initiated. The 
ceremonies by which they were disclosed appear to have 
been of a most imposing and dramatic character. The 
initiation to the Mysteries at Eleusis began witha solemn 
proclamation that no one might enter whose hands were 
not clean and whose tongue was not prudent. The 
candidates were next asked to confess their sins, con- 
fession being followed by a species of baptism. A fast 
of nine days, during which certain kinds of food were 
forbidden, was prescribed, and at the end of this period 
a solemn sacrifice, known as the cwrnpia, was offered by 
each of the candidates. After a further interval of two 
days a procession of the initiates set out from Athens for 
Eleusis, singing paeans in honour of the god. The night 
' of their arrival was spent in learning the nature of the 
Mysteries. The candidates stood outside the temple in 
the darkness ; suddenly the doors were opened and they 
were in a blaze of light. The story of Demeter and 
Koré was represented: the loss of the daughter, the 
grief of the mother, the restoration of life from death. 
The whole scene was a parable; mors janua vitae the 
clue to it. In the Roman empire, mysteries of the 
character described obtained wide popularity. Most of 
them gave utterance to the same ideas as those expressed 
in the sacred rites of Eleusis—the desire for purification 
from sin, the hope of immortality, the joy of a brotherly 
union cemented by religion. The popularity of mysticism 
was, in fact, a part of a great religious revival which 
distinguished the age, a noteworthy feature of which 


The Mysteries. 


188 INFLUENCE OF THE PHILOSOPHERS. [cu. IX, 


was the desire to worship the One true God. Even in 
early times the unity of God appears to have been ac- 
knowledged in the Eleusinian Mysteries. An ancient 
hymn sung in them by the priest said: ‘Go on in the 
right way and contemplate the sole Governor of the 
world. He is One and of himself alone, and to that 
One all things owe their being. He worketh through 
all, was never seen by mortal eyes, but doth himself 
see everyone.’ 
pated katie The Philosopher exercised in the 
Roman Empire. Empire a far greater influence than the 
Priest, and was not unfrequently sum- 
moned to act the part of a spiritual director? His 
authority was respected in cases of conscience, and his 
presence sought in times of sickness or bereavement. 
In some families the philosopher occupied a position 
somewhat analogous to that of a domestic chaplain. 
The satirist Lucian describes the troubles of philosophers 
who lived under the patronage of the fashionable ladies 
of his time. His essay ‘On Persons who give their 
Society for Pay’ recalls the description of the chaplains 
in the novels of the eighteenth century. One philosopher 
has to travel in the cart with the maid-servants, another 
is asked to take care of the lap-dog, a third reads a 
sermon on temperance while his patroness is having 
her hair dressed, and is interrupted while she writes 
a note to her lover.’ —The same author, in his description 


of the death of Peregrinus Proteus, depicts the philo- ~ 


sophers as street preachers addressing exciting harangues 
to the multitudes on the subject of the proposed self- 
immolation of Peregrinus. The philosophers in their 
long cloaks were everywhere conspicuous. Like the 
mendicants in the middle ages, they sought to inspire 
reverence by their ragged attire, their filth, and (to 
borrow a phrase from Gibbon) ‘their populous beards’. 
Some philosophers held well-endowed ‘chairs’ of philo- 
sophy in the great cities, others wandered about from 


1. See Dr. Hatch’s Azbbert Lectures, Lecture X., ‘The Influence 
of the Mysteries upon Christian Usages.’? Also Zhe Unknown God, by 
C. Loring Brace, ch. iv.; and Bury, “story of Greece, pp. 312 ff. 

2. Dill, Roman Society from Nero to Marcus Aurelius, pp. 289 ff. 

3. Hatch, of. cat, ch. ii., ‘Greek Education.’ 


5 ao 

r at Sie 
<=") a 

ee os 

poe he. cack alin 


a 


™ 


CH. 1x.] UNPOPULARITY OF EPICUREANS. 189 


place to place delivering lectures. The dominant 
philosophy of the age aimed at moral excellence, and 
many submitted to ascetic discipline by the advice of 
a philosopher. Marcus Aurelius led the life of a religious 
recluse under the guidance of Junius Rusticus and 
Claudius Severus. At the age of twelve the future 
emperor assumed the dress of a philosopher, and learned 
to practise such severe austerities as permanently to 
injure his health.* During the early days of Christianity 
the aim of Greek philosophy was the moral elevation 
of mankind, and despite the eccentricities and follies 
of a few, the influence of the philosophers was a power 
for good. The works of the best exponents of Stoicism, 
of Seneca, of Epictetus, and of Marcus Aurelius, remain 
to this day among the most popular moral treatises of 
antiquity. Christians like Justin Martyr after their 
conversion continued to wear the philosopher’s robe, 
which Tertullian considered to be the dress most be- 
coming to a Christian teacher.’ 

The most popular and wide-spread 
philosophies during the first three centuries 
of our era appear to have been those of the Epicurean, 
Stoic, and Neo-Platonic schools. ‘The first-named was, 
however, steadily decreasing in influence. The times 
were too hard, the tragic side of life too prominent, 
to allow the genial but selfish doctrines of Epicurus to 
flourish. When they made their appearance in Rome, 
they were hailed by Lucretius as a means of deliverance 
from superstition,* but the calamities which the world 
had undergone in the first and second centuries had 
made mankind turn with longing to the supernatural, 
and the religious feeling of the age was entirely opposed 
to the atheism of the Epicurean philosophy. Origen 


Epicureans. 


1. Renan, Marcus Aurelius, ch. i. 
2. Tertullian, de Anz. 20, ‘*‘ Seneca saepe noster.” 
3. Tertullian, de Palio. 
4. ‘* Humana ante oculos foede quum vita jaceret 
In terris oppressa gravi sub religione, 
Quae caput a coeli regionibus ostendebat, 
Horribili super aspectu mortalibus instans : 
Primum Graius homo mortalis tollere contra 
Est oculos ausus, primusque obsistere contra.” 
Lucretius, 1. 62—67. 


190 PEREGRINUS PROTEUS, [CH. IX. 


taunts Celsus with not daring to avow himself to be an 
Epicurean.1 Lucian, in his romance of the pseudo- 
prophet Alexander of Abonitichos, makes the hero 
institute a celebration of Mysteries, on the first day 
of which a proclamation was made, “If any Atheist or 
Christian or Epicurean has come to spy upon the 
festival, let him flee!”? The unpopularity of the 
Epicureans is in itself a sign of the religious temper 
of the age. 

The satirist Lucian (born about 120 
A.D.), who made it the object of his life to 
expose impostures, is the most brilliant product of the 
Epicurean philosophy. He describes himself as a hater 
of jugglery, les, and ostentation. He attacks superstition 
with umnsparing severity, shewing himself relentless 
towards those who imposed on the credulity of man- 
kind. His detestation of hypocrisy is apparent even when 
his laugh is loudest. Lucian introduces the Christians 
in his humorous description of Peregrinus Proteus, a 
Cynic philosopher who burned himself at the Olympic 
Games. The satirist treats the admiration excited by 
this ostentatious self-immolation with the ridicule it 
deserves, and gives a short biography of Peregrinus. 
Among the victims of the impostor were the Christians, 
whom Lucian describes as very simple persons liable to 
be deceived by worthless pretenders to sanctity. Pere- 
grinus completely succeeded in making the Christians 
his dupes, and when he was imprisoned for the Faith,’ 
their admiration for him was unbounded. They regarded 
him, in Lucian’s words, ‘“‘as their legislator and high 
priest, nay they almost worshipped him as a god.” 


Lucian. 


1. Origen, Contra Celsum, 1, 68. 

2. Hatch, Hzbbert Lectures, x. Lucian, Alex., c. 38. 

3. Lucian in his amusing sketch de Morte Peregrint shews a very 
slight acquaintance with Christianity. Peregrinus’ connexion with the 
Church was probably due to Lucian’s imagination. He is called by a 
strange mixture of Jewish and heathen terms mpogjrns cal Ocacdpxns Kal 
guvaywyevs, and is said to have composed some of the sacred books of the 
Christians. A deputation from the churches of Asia waited upon Pere- 
grinus during his imprisonment. It seems highly probable that Lucian 
based the story of his hero’s adventures as a Christian upon an account of 
the martyrdom of Ignatius. Lightfoot, 4sostolic Fathers, Part II., vol. 1., 
PP- 344 sq. 


CH, IX.] STOICISM. IQI 


During the imprisonment of Peregrinus the widows 
and orphans of the Church visited him assiduously, and 
bribes were offered to his gaolers for permission to share 
in his imprisonment. He was attended by the clergy, 
who delivered religious addresses in his presence. At 
last, however, the Christians seem to have discovered 
that Peregrinus was an impostor. Lucian says that they 
expelled him from their society for eating something for- 
bidden among them. Although Lucian’s account of the 
Christian religion shews that he had only a superficial 
acquaintance with its doctrines, his description of their 
behaviour to Peregrinus is probably taken from observa- 
tion. It is noteworthy that he shews no animosity in 
his description: in his eyes the Christians are ignorant 
and credulous persons, liable to be deluded by any clever 
charlatan.’ 

The teaching of Zeno of Citium (circa 
B.C. 350—258) was popular in Rome during 
the latter days of the Republic,? and continued to be the 
chief moral force in the Empire till the death of Marcus 
Aurelius. The proud self-sufficiency, the heroic devotion 
to duty inculcated by the Stoics, together with the 
importance attached by them to the performance of the 
practical obligations of life, made their doctrine very 
attractive to the Roman mind, and Stoicism contributed 
largely to the maintenance of a lofty ideal of virtue 
during the wildest excesses of the early days of the 
Empire.® The influence for good exercised by the most 
eminent professors of Stoicism during the first centuries 
of our era, and the excellence of many of their maxims, 
has prompted several Christian writers to discover a 
connexion between the first preachers of the Gospel and 
the Stoics. 


Stoicism. 


1. Dill, Roman Society from Nero to Marcus Aurelius, pp. 337 ff. 

2. In B.C. 155, the Athenians sent an embassy to Rome consisting of 
Diogenes a Stoic philosopher, Carneades the Academic, and the Peripatetic 
Critolaus. Cato the Elder was so apprehensive of the influence of Greek 
philosophy that he insisted on the Athenian ambassadors being dismissed 
as soon as possible. Panaetius of Rhodes (about 180—111 B.C.) was the 
first Stoic philosopher to make disciples among the Roman aristocracy. 
Ueberweg, History of Philosophy. 

3. Lecky, Aistory of European Morals, vol. 1., ch. ii., ‘The Pagan 
Empire.’ Dill, Roman Society from Nero to Marcus Aurelius, pp. 289 ff. 


{92 STOICISM AND CHRISTIANITY. (CH. IX. 


Many Stoic precepts bear a strong if 

Supposed superficial resemblance to the utterances of 
peebtascigrone  j Christians. St. Paul and Seneca present 
and Christianity. such striking analogies, thatithas been con- 
jectured that they had become acquainted 

during the Apostle’s imprisonment in Rome. ‘The 
language of Seneca might be that of a Christian divine 
when he says: “No man is good without God.” ‘God 
made the world because He is good; as the good never 
grudges anything good, He therefore made everything the 
best possible.” ‘God has a fatherly mind towards good 
men and loves them stoutly ; and, saith He, Let them be 
harassed with toils, with pains, with losses, that they 
may gait true strength.” ‘A holy spirit resides in us, 
the guardian and observer of our good and evil deeds.’’? 
Still more devotional are the sayings of Epictetus: “ The 
first thing to learn is that there is a God, that His know- 
ledge pervades the whole universe, and that it extends 
not only to our acts, but thoughts and feelings.” ‘‘To 
have God for our maker and father and guardian, should 
not that emancipate us from all sadness and from all 
fear?” “When you have shut your door and darkened 
your room say not to yourself that you are alone. God 
is in your room, and your attendant genius likewise. 
Think not that they need the light to see what you do.” 
“What can I, an old man and a cripple, do but praise 
God?”? The same religious character is exhibited, if 
possible in a still greater degree, in the Meditations of 
Marcus Aurelius. | 
Similarity of phraseology, however, 
Ae, SGP poes does not necessarily involve identity of 
irreconeileable, thought. The Stoic idea of God is radically 
opposed to the Christian. The latter con- 

ceives of God as a Being with personal attributes dis- 


1: The pretended correspondence between the Apostle and the 
Philosopher was current in the days of St. Jerome. 

2. Lightfoot, Philippians, Dissertation ‘St. Paul and Seneca’, 

. 279. 

. 3. Quoted by Lecky, Aestory of Huropean Morals, vol. 1., p. 260, 
from Arrian, Epictetus. Notice, however, the harsh contempt with which 
Epictetus speaks of women and children: Bigg, Church’s Task under the 
Roman Empire, p. xii. 


OE 


CH. 1X.] THE STOIC IDEA OF GOD. 193 


tinct from the universe of which He is the Creator and 
Ruler. When the Stoic spoke of God, he meant the soul 
of the universe, the animating spirit of the world. Thus 
the philosophers of the Porch regarded God in a totally 
different light from that in which Christians contemplate 
Him. The Hebrew idea, adopted by Christians, that 
God is infinitely superior to man, is quite alien to the 
Stoic conception of His nature. To Jew and Christian 
alike the idea of comparing man with God seems 
blasphemous. The Stoic saw nothing profane in assert- 
ing that the wise man is the equal of Zeus. To him 
Lucan’s famous line “ Victvix causa deis placuit, sed victa 
Catoni”’* contains nothing irreverent, The just man 
defying adverse fate appeared a nobler object than the 
gods themselves. Equally unintelligible to the Stoics 
was the warm sympathy displayed by Christians to one 
another. Absence of feeling was the ideal of the one; to 
rejoice with them that rejoice and to weep with them 
that weep, the duty of the other. The most famous 
examples of Stoicism prided themselves on their com- 
plete freedom from all natural emotions. ‘The philo- 
sopher who, on being told that his son was dead, replied 
“T never thought that I had begotten an immortal,” was 
commended as an example of manly fortitude. The 
sentiment of pity was considered to be a sign of 
weakness. The wise man, it was said, ought to imitate 
the gods in relieving distress without experiencing any 
sentiments of compassion. Compassion in the eyes of 
the Stoic was an abuse of clemency, as superstition is of 
religion. This arrogance, however, towards God and 


harshness towards man, which in the Stoic system of 


ethics occupied a place among the noblest virtues, were 
not more alien to the precepts of Christianity than its 
view of death. Nothing proves more clearly how wide a 
gulf separates the ideas of antiquity from those prevalent 
among the Christianized nations of Europe, than the 
view taken of suicide. In modern jurisprudence suicide 
is considered a crime, public opinion brands it as an act 
of cowardice, and the merciful verdict of a jury often 
attributes self-destruction to insanity. In the opinion of 


1. Pharsalia, i. 128. 


194 STOIC SERVICES TO HUMANITY. (cu. 1x. 


antiquity, suicide was frequently an act of sublime 
virtue. The death of Cato was a common subject for 
panegyric. Zeno, the founder of Stoicism, died by his 
own hand. Seneca expatiates on the power of termin- 
ating life at will as a most inestimable privilege. ‘This 
frame of mind, almost incomprehensible to us, was com- 
mon in antiquity. Very few remonstrances were made 
by ancient moralists against the practice of self-murder. 
The Roman law recognised the right of a man to end 
his life when he pleased, and imposed no posthumous 
disgrace on suicides. This circumstance is attributable 
to the view the ancients took of death. They had no 
idea that it could be regarded as the wages of sin. The 
Platonists looked upon it as the liberation of the soul 
from the bondage of the body; many said that it was 
an eternal sleep. The philosophers agreed in condemning 
the popular superstition that men were tormented in 
Tartarus.! It is not surprising, therefore, that the only 
allusions Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius? make to Chris- 
tianity should express their contempt for the desire for 
martyrdom shewn by the believers. The rapturous 
hopes of a future life, as well as the joy felt by the 
martyrs at dying for Christ, seemed to them the height 
of folly and ostentation. The wise man, if he desired 
to retire from life, had the remedy in his own hands, 
and could do so quietly and without display. 

It is undeniable that the Stoic philo- 
sophy did a great work in stimulating a 
-love of virtue in one of the darkest periods of history. 
It is no small glory to a philosophical School that, 


Stoic virtue. 


during the political immorality which characterised the - 


last days of the Republic and the hideous outbreak 
of unbridled sensuality which marked the age of the 
Twelve Caesars, it should have taught ‘men to prize 


1. Lecky, Héstory of European Morals, vol. 1., p. 217: ‘‘ To destroy 
them (these superstitions) was represented as the highest function of 
philosophy. Plutarch denounced them as the worst calumny against the 
Deity, as more pernicious than atheism...... P 

2. Epictetus, speaking of the fearless attitude which a wise man ought 
to assume towards the threats of a tyrant, says elra trd wavlas pév Sivaral 
ris oUrw Siaredjvat mpds Tav’ra, kal vrd €Oous ws ol TadtAator. Arrian, Dzss., 
Iv. 7,6. Marcus Aurelius condemns the WAH wapdragis with which the 
Christians meet death. 


CH. 1X] NEO-PLATONISM. 195 


integrity, self-discipline, and virtue as the highest good. 
At the time when the profession of virtue was regarded 
as a crime, Stoicism furnished its martyrs. Its principles 
triumphed with the accession of Nerva, and close upon a 
century of good government marked its victory. To the 
Stoics the world owes the enunciation of principles, 
which Christianity has at last made realities. The 
_ noble declaration that ‘all men are born free’ was first 
made by a Stoic; that slaves were capable of virtue 
was strongly affirmed by Seneca, and proved by Epictetus. 
Marcus Aurelius under the teaching of Stoicism affords 
one of the very few examples of despotic power exercised 
entirely. for the benefit of mankind. In this great 
emperor, moreover, many of the more repulsive aspects 
of Stoicism were conspicuously absent. He was sincerely 
religious, his disposition seems to have been singularly 
affectionate, his self-examination in his Meditations 
shews a touching humility. This softening of the 
asperities of Stoicism, though partly due to the personal 
character of the Emperor, is to some extent attributable 
to the tendencies of his age. In philosophy, as in 
religion, eclecticism had become popular, and Marcus 
Aurelius was, in this respect, no exception to the rule. 
His Stoicism was very dissimilar to the harsh philosophy 
which formed the earlier ideals of Cato or of Brutus.} 
The heartlessness of Epicureanism and 
the hard self-righteousness of Stoicism 
were being supplanted throughout the second century 
by more humane and religious philosophies. It must be 
added that the period succeeding the death of Aurelius 
was hardly propitious to the practical and eminently 
political virtues inculcated by Stoicism. From the time 
of Commodus to that of Diocletian political life was 
crushed by the licence of military despotism. The New 
Platonism, which maintained supremacy in the philo- 
sophical Schools from the death of Marcus Aurelius to 
the suppression of philosophical teaching by the bigotry 
of Justinian (A.D. 527), was a fusion of various philo- 
sophies and religions. It laboured to keep the influence 
of philosophy alive by allying it with religion, and to 


! Neo-Platonism, 


1. Bigg, Church's Task under the Roman Empire, p. xii. 
N 2 


196 NEO-PLATONIC PERSECUTORS. (CH. Ix. 


revive religion under the sanction of philosophy. In 
consequence of this the Neo-Platonists came into open 
collision with the Christians. The attitude of the philo- 
sophers of the new School towards the Church was 
neither that of the Epicureans, who regarded Christianity 
as a delusion to be ridiculed, nor that of the Stoics, to 
whom it was a political duty to crush a religion alike 
unreasonable and illegal. The Neo-Platonists saw in 
Christianity a rival religion, and employed the arts 
of the priest as well as those of the statesman to 
subdue it. 

This is the true explanation of the persecution 
under Diocletian, accounting for the phenomena by 
which it was characterised. The refusal of the oracles 
to reply to the Emperor because the Christians were 
tolerated, the burning of the Christian Scriptures, the 
outrages on the chastity of the Christian virgins, and the 
other distinguishing features of this persecution, may be 
traced to the influence of Neo-Platonic philosophers like 
Hierocles and Theotecnus. The earlier persecutions had 
been political ; the last great persecution was essentially 
religious. The same fanatical spirit, though restrained 
by the caution and, we may add, the natural humanity 
of the Emperor, animated Julian’s attempt to suppress 
Christianity more than half a century later. 

In Neo-Platonism the system of the 
later Pythagoreans was combined with 
the teaching of the Platonists. The 
Pythagorean philosophy, revived at Alexandria about 
B.c. 60 by P. Nigidius Figulus, was further developed 
by the Plato-Pythagoreans, among the most celebrated 
of whom were Plutarch, Galen the physician (a.p. 131— 
200), Celsus the opponent of Christianity, and Numenius 
of Apamea.? 

Between this School and the Jewish and Christian 
philosophers, especially those of Alexandria, there were 
many remarkable affinities. Philo was almost more 
a Platonist than a Jew; Justin Martyr in his search for 
truth, before he became a Christian, found partial satis- _ 
faction in the Platonic doctrines ; nor does his teaching _ 


Origin of Neo- 
Platonism. 


& Dill, Roman Society from Nero to Marcus Aurelius, p. 398. 


CH. 1X.] APOLLONIUS OF TYANA. 197 


on the subject of the Logos differ materially from that 
of the Plato-Pythagoreans of the second century. 
Evidence that Christianity was not entirely without 
influence upon some of the exponents of this philosophy 
is found in the ‘Life of Apollonius of Tyana’ composed 
by Philostratus at the request of Julia Domna, wife of 
Septimius Severus. It is obviously based on the Gospel 
narrative, and it seems to have been written with a 
desire to conciliate the Christians, and to shew under 
what conditions Hellenism was prepared to acknowledge 
our Lord. Apollonius of Tyana was a 

goat Neo-Pythagorean philosopher in the age 

pollonius 3 ; i 

of Tyana, of Nero. His biography, written by 

by Philostratus. Philostratus, is a pure romance, represent- 
ing the sage as a combination of the 

Christian Messiah and a Greek philosopher. His birth 
was announced by Proteus, the spirit of nature. To his 
mother’s request to know whom she was to bear, the 
god replied, ‘“‘Myself.” At the age of sixteen the divine 
child’s mission began; he gave away his property, 
and took a vow of perpetual chastity. He constantly 
practised all the severe asceticism of a Pythagorean 
recluse—dwelling in temples, especially those of Aescu- 
lapius. His desire for wisdom led him to the land of 
the Brahmins, from which he returned as the saviour 
of the Hellenic world, wandering from city to city 
attended by his disciples. From the heathen priests he 
met with continual opposition, but the common people 
heard him gladly. His mysterious powers were felt by 
the political world in the downfall both of Nero and of 
Domitian, and in the elevation of Vespasian and of 
Nerva. Hearing of the persecution of the philosophers, 
Apollonius visited Rome. When he was insulted and 
imprisoned and told by his judge to save himself by a 
miracle, he vanished from the tribunal and appeared 
to two disciples at Puteoli as they sat in the grotto 
of the nymphs talking of their lost master. Apollonius 


1. Numenius of Apamea, for example, speaks of the first God who is 
pure thought (vofs) and the principle of being (ovclas dpx7). The second 
God is the Creator (6 Snusovpyds Geds). The third God is the World. He 
terms these three Gods respectively ‘Father, Son, and Grandson,’ Euseb., 
Praep. Evang., Xi. 22. 


198 CELSUS. : [CH. IX. 


continued his work of reformation, preaching earnestly 
against the shedding of blood in sacrifices, the worship of 
images, and the cruelty of the amphitheatre. At last 
he was imprisoned in Crete, but the prison doors were 
opened, his chains were loosed, and he ascended to 
heaven in the company of hosts of celestial beings. 
The object of Philostratus appears to have been to 
present in his hero a life of Christ alike acceptable to 
Hellenic and Christian ideas." 

If the Life of Apollonius may be con- 


im. [elsus’ sidered as an eirenicon oifered by the 
recon sednrte Plato-Pythagoreans to the Christians, the 


the Christians. work of Celsus is a statement of their 

objections to the doctrine of the Church. 
Celsus wrote his treatise probably in the reign of Marcus 
Aurelius, but it does not seem to have attracted much 
attention till half a century later, when a copy fell into 
the hands of Ambrosius of Alexandria, who asked Origen 
to answer its arguments. In his great work against 
Celsus the Christian Apologist has quoted so much of 
his opponent’s book that we are able to obtain a good 
idea of its contents. The Aoyos adnO7s, as Celsus’ work 
was entitled, is of inestimable historical value, because 
it enables us to see in what light Christianity was 
regarded by the most cultivated heathens of the third 
century. Celsus evidently devoted much time and 
attention to the study of Christianity. He was familiar 
with the Scriptures, knew something of the internal 
divisions among believers, and he had made himself 
acquainted with the opinions of several Gnostic sects. 
Although his incapacity to appreciate the beauties of 
the religion he desires to overthrow often impels Celsus 
to advance palpably absurd arguments, he is sometimes 
a very dangerous and skilful antagonist. According 
to Celsus, the world is the work of the One God, who 
committed it to the care of the inferior gods or Daemons. 
The Creator has no need, like a bad workman, to correct 
His work, but can leave it to continue in the same 
perfect condition as it was when He called it into being. 


1. Bigg, Christian Platonists of Alexandria, pp. 244—252, Dill, 
op. ett., p. 399 ff. 


CH. IX.]} OBJECTIONS TO CHRISTIANITY. 199 


The world was not made for the sake of mankind, 
whom he regards as only a part of the universal whole, 
not in many respects superior to the beasts. The soul 
of man is immortal, but his body is of vile and perish- 
able material. Worship is due to the Daemons, for 
by honouring them we honour the Creator of all. 
Everything is in subjection to God ; and it is derogatory 
to His dignity to suppose that there can be evil beings 
opposed to Him. Celsus regards Christianity as not 
only irrational but as taking an unworthy view of God, 
since its doctrine of Redemption presupposes an im- 
perfection in God’s creation, and the hope of resurrection 
implies an unworthy desire for the retention of the 
mortal body. The supposition that God specially 
desires the salvation of the human race is an undue 
exaltation of one small part of creation. Celsus con- 
siders that the refusal of the Christians to worship the 
Daemons betrays inconsistency, for it is impossible to 
avoid receiving benefits from them, since the very food 
which we eat and the air which we breathe are the 
gifts of the particular Daemons to whose province they 
are assigned. Equally incomprehensible to Celsus is 
the Christian doctrine of the manifestation of God in 
Jesus Christ. He dwells on the supposed meanness of 
our Lord’s appearance, and on the failure of His earthly 
career, and considers it folly to imagine that God would 
thus reveal Himself. Celsus is not slow to take ad- 
vantage of what appear to him as weak points in the 
Christian scheme:—the inconsistency between the moral 
code of the Old Testament and that of the New; the 
discrepancies in the Gospels ; the notion that an obscure 
race like the Jews were God’s chosen people. His 
tone throughout is bitter and supercilious; he can see 
no merit in the Christian Faith, and treats it as a 
pure delusion.’ But the care bestowed upon the refuta- 
tion of Christianity by Celsus shews that he was far 
from underrating its power. He feels that it is destined 
at no long period of time to prevail. Celsus was the 
first of the governing classes to discern that Christianity 


1. Baur, Church History, vol. ., pp. 140—167. An admirable 
epitome of the arguments of Celsus. 


200 THE NEO-PLATONISTS. (CH. IX. 


was dividing Roman society, and he viewed with alarm 
the prospect of a large, intelligent, and ill-used class, 
alienated by persecution from public affairs, when the 
Empire needed its support. His diatribe against the 
Christians concludes with an earnest appeal to them 
to rally round the Emperor against his foes and no 
longer to refuse to serve the State in public offices.» 
pied tas The founder of the Neo-Platonic 
Neo-Platonists, OChool? was an apostate from Christianity 
named Ammonius Saccas (A.D. 175—250), 
whose lectures Origen is said to have attended. 
Plotinus (a.p. 204—269), the disciple of Ammonius, 
was the first to develope the principles of Neo-Platonism 
into a system, which was subsequently revised and 
arranged by his pupil Porphyry (a.p. 232—304).8 Jam- 
blichus (died a.D. 330) opposed Porphyry’s attempt 
to discountenance the growing tendency to combine 
magical practices with philosophy, by laying great 
stress on the religious aspect of Neo-Platonism, which 
he regarded simply as a means of strengthening poly- 
theism.* Hierocles, the governor of Bithynia in the 
time of the persecution of Diocletian, and the Emperor 
Julian (A.D. 361—363), were also members of the Neo- 
Platonic School. | 
Neo-Platonism differed from the earlier systems of 
philosophy in its preference of the contemplative to the 
practical side of life. Stoicism had made active virtue 
its chief object; and the ancient philosophers of Greece 
had clearly recognised the inculcation of principles of 
political virtue as their: most important duty. The 
Neo-Platonists, on the other hand, sought rather to 


1. Bigg, Christian Platonists of Alexandria, pp. 254—267. 

2. Erdmann, “History of Philosophy, vol. 1., pp. 126—130 (Eng. 
Transl., Sonnenschein). Ueberweg, Azstory of Philosophy (Theol. and 
Philosophical Library). Lecky, Azstory of European Morals, vol. i, 
pp. 348 foll. Baur, Church History, vol. 11.5 pp. 178—189. Gibbon, 
ch. xiii. (end). 

3. Ueberweg, of. czt., p. 251. Porphyry’s writings against the 
Christians are only known from quotations in the works of Eusebius, 
Augustine, &c. 

4. Jamblichus distinguishes between the @eol voepol, vrepxdcuiot, and 
éyxdoptot and the Absolute One, the évas duéOexros. Erdmann, Aistory of 
Philosophy, vol. 1.5 p. 248 (Eng. Trans.). . . 


CH. Ix. ] REVIVAL OF SUPERSTITION. 201 


withdraw their disciples from the world than to 
encourage participation in the active duties of life.! 
This tendency is in part attributable to the cessation of 
political life in the Empire, but chiefly to the transcen- 
dental character of the Neo-Platonic conception of God. 
Plotinus and his followers agreed with the Christians 
in exalting God above the universe, and in placing 
Him beyond the reach of human understanding. They 
believed, however, that the soul, if purified from all 
earthly thoughts, was capable of ecstatic contemplation 
of the Divinity.2, This condition of mind was considered 
attainable by self-isolation and ascetic observances, 
and, notwithstanding the protests of Porphyry, it was 
frequently sought by the practice of magic or in cere- 
monies of a mysterious and awe-inspiring character.’ 
The popular myths, which the earlier philosophers had 
either held up to ridicule or endeavoured to explain 
as due to ignorant misconceptions of natural phenomena, 
were regarded by the Neo-Platonists as foreshadowing 
the most important truths. The doctrine of Daemons, 
or intermediaries between God and man, was carefully 
maintained by this School, which in its opposition to 
the bolder scepticism of antiquity exalted credulity 
into a virtue, and degraded manly self-discipline into 
a means of weakening the physical power of the body 
in order to quicken the spiritual perceptions. The Neo- 
Platonists attempted to provide, by a revival of the 
ancient religion, a counter-attraction to Christianity. 
The Roman world in its desire for a faith was already 
almost prepared to embrace the Gospel, when this last 
effort to restore the influence of Hellenism was made. 
The Neo-Platonists borrowed without acknowledgement 
that which seemed most attractive in Christianity, and 


1. Plotinus teaches that retirement from the whole external world is 
necessary for the attainment of this standpoint. Erdmann, fzstory of 
Philosophy, vol. 1., p. 244 (Eng. Trans.). Lecky, Azstory of European 
Morals, p. 350. 

2. According to Plotinus, we must believe in this illumination in 
which the contemplating and the contemplated become one, so that 
ecstasy, devotion, actual union, take the place of contemplation of 
another. Erdmann, Joc. cit. 

3. Porphyry’s Epzstle to Anebon is a protest against this. Rendall, 
Fulian, ch. iii. Dill, of. czt., pp. 430 ff. 


202 PORPHYRY’S ARGUMENTS, [CH. IX. 


used it to galvanize the dead forms of older creeds into 
a semblance of life. 
The philosophers of this School, 
Attacks on puis especially Porphyry,' shewed much zeal 
tianity by 
Weo-Pletonistes/jii0 combating the Christian doctrines. 
The line of argument adopted was more 
plausible than that followed by Celsus and the earlier 
writers against Christianity. The Neo-Platonists did 
not, like their predecessors, asperse the character of 
our Lord, but, whilst professing a great admiration for 
the life of Jesus, they endeavoured to shew that the 
teaching of the Founder of Christianity was perverted 
by His disciples, especially when they represent Him as 
an opponent of the gods of polytheism.? Porphyry, the 
writer most hostile to the Church and most dreaded by 
the Christian Fathers, applied himself to a searching 
examination of the Old and New Testaments. He 
declared the book of Daniel to be not a prophecy but 
an historical work composed in the days of Antiochus 
Epiphanes; he used the dispute between St. Peter and 
St. Paul, related in Galatians, ch. i1., as an argument 
against the credibility of the testimony of the Church, 
whose leaders were proved to have been guilty, the one 
of inconsistency, and the other of contentiousness; and 
he censures our Lord’s visit to Jerusalem (St. John 


vii. 14) after His refusal to go up to the feast of 


tabernacles (St. John vii. 8).8 Porphyry, Jamblichus, 
and Hierocles agreed in blaming the exclusive reverence 
of the Christians for their Founder, and in claiming that 
in Pythagoras and Apollonius of Tyana the Deity had 
been manifested to the world at least as wonderfully as 
the Christians supposed had been the case in the life 
of Jesus. Jamblichus depicts Pythagoras as not only 
the highest ideal of wisdom but as an incarnate god. 
The chief hope of the Neo-Platonic revival lay in this 


1. Baur, Church History, vol. 11., p. 179. Theodoret, a Christian 


bishop of the fifth centnry, calls Porphyry 6 dowovdos nuwy wodduos 6 | 


wavrwy éxOcoros diareOjvat. 

2. Baur, of. ctt., p. 182. Augustine calls them ‘‘vani Christi 
laudatores, et Christianae religionis obliqui obtrectatores”’. 

3. Smith and Wace, Dict. Christian Biog., Art. * Porphyry’. 
Porphyry wrote fifteen books against the Christians. Ueberweg, Azstory 
of Philosophy, vol, 1., p. 253. Euseb., 2. &. vi. 19. 


alt 
Pee 
nea ie calc a 


CH.1x.} NEO-PLATONISM AND CHRISTIANITY. 203 . 


attempt.1. In a credulous and undiscriminating age, 
when Porphyry’s criticism of Christian records had 
little weight, the partisans of Hellenism saw that if 
Christianity was to be supplanted it could only be by 
a system which was a counterfeit of its own. Hellenism 
could only succeed if a divine Pythagoras could supplant 
Christ, and Oriental magic take the place of the Sacra- 
ments of the Church. Neo-Platonism was a last 
despairing attempt to counterfeit Christianity under 
the name of Hellenism. 
If in the Neo-Platonic School we 
pecnenente, BS see philosophy powerfully influenced by 
Christianity. Christian ideas, the history of the Church 
in the fourth century shews the reflex 
_action of Neo-Platonism upon Christianity. The same 
tendencies, which had caused the ancient philosophies to 
give way to systems in which emotional ecstasy was 
preferred to virtue, and the practice of bodily mortifica- 
tion to duty, were at work among the Christians. A 
growing belief in the value of the mere externals of 
religion, an ever-increasing credulity, and undue reverence 
for relics, holy places, and the like, conjoined with a 
preference of orthodoxy to purity of life, and of asceticism 
to domestic virtue, are characteristics of the age which 
followed the conversion of Constantine. The degeneracy 
of philosophy was accompanied by a corresponding 
decay of the nobler elements of primitive Christianity. 
The high ideals of St. Paul, Justin Martyr, and Tertullian 
in the Church have their counterparts in those of Seneca, 
Epictetus, and Marcus Aurelius. The great Fathers of the 
fourth century completely overshadowed all the repre- 
sentatives of the philosophy of their age, but were power- 
less to check its prevailing influences. Monasticism, the 
multiplication of religious rites, pilgrimages, and relic 
worship, were signs of the rapid degeneration of the lofty 
morality and fearless faith of the first age of Christianity. 
The difference between Christian 
thought in the Eastern and Western world 
is further illustrated by the attitude of the 
Fathers towards philosophy. The Orientals—Justin 
Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen—were 


The Christian 
Apologists. 


¥, “Baur; of, c#Z.5°p.. 153. 


204 APOLOGY OF ARISTIDES. “ (CH, IX. 


irresistibly attracted by the teaching of Plato, which 
was regarded with distrust by the teachers of the 
Western Church. On the other hand, the practical 
morality of the Stoics touched a responsive chord in the 
hearts of the Occidentals. ‘Tertullian, Lactantius, and 
Jerome agree in praising Seneca; and the spurious 
correspondence between that philosopher and St. Paul 
attained a wide popularity in the Latin Church.’ Herein 
lies the reason for the distinction between the Greek and 
Latin Apologists. The former made it their first object 
to demonstrate that Christianity is the perfect develop- 
ment of truths imperfectly apprehended by the sages of 
antiquity ;? the latter, that the Faith is worthy of encour- 
agement because of its salutary influence on mankind. 
The newly discovered Apology of 
Aristides is the earliest example of a Greek 
Apology for Christianity. Eusebius says that when 
Hadrian succeeded Trajan, Quadratus presented him 
with a discourse about the Christians, because at this 
time some evil-disposed persons were trying to arouse 
a persecution against them. From this Apology Eusebius 
proceeds to quote the oft-cited passage about some of 
those who had been healed and even raised from the 
dead by our Saviour surviving to his own days. After 
this the historian speaks of Aristides, “a faithful man 
attached to our religion, who also addressed an Apology 
to Hadrian.” “The work” he adds “is extant to this 
day with very many.”® The Armenian version of the 
Chronicle of the same writer, under the year A.D. 124 
says that Aristides was a philosopher of Athens, and 
that his Apology and that of Quadratus “the hearer of 
the Apostles’’ were the cause of the rescript of Hadrian 
to Minucius Fundanus. As however the Syriac version 
of the Apology is addressed to Caesar Titus Hadrianus 
Antoninus Augustus Pius, it has been suggested that 
Eusebius is in error, and that the Apology of Aristides 


Aristides. 


I. Bp. Lightfoot, PAi/éppians, Dissertation ‘St. Paul and Seneca’, 

2. Justin Martyr, 4p. 11.13. 80a ody mapa maot Kadws elpnrat, Nar 
Trav Xpicriavav early. 

3. Eusebius, 2. Z. tv. 3. Kal ’Aptorelins 58 muords dvinp rhs Kad’ 
Huds dpudpevos edoeBelas, ry Kodpdrw mapamdnolws vrép ris micrews 
drodoylar, éripwrjcas ‘Adpave Karadédoure. Lwgera Gé ye els deipo 
mapa weloros Kal 7 TovTov ypadpy. 


CH, IX. ] DISCOVERY OF ‘ARISTIDES’, 205 


belongs to neither of the visits of Hadrian to Athens in the 
winters of A.D. 125-26 and 129-30, but to the early days 
of hissuccessor. ‘The discovery of this Apology, or rather 
of what it really consisted, is due partly to the Armenian 
fathers of the Lazarist Monastery at Venice, who published 
an Armenian version with a Latin translation of the 
earlier chapters, which M. Renan at once pronounced 
to be a production of the fourth century; and partly 
to two Cambridge scholars, Prof. Rendel Harris and 
Dean Armitage Robinson. The former discovered 
the Syriac version of the Apology in the convent of 
St. Catharine on Mt. Sinai in 1889, and the latter’s 
critical skill was by a happy accident enabled to 
recognise that the Greek of Aristides had been for 
centuries before the world in the speech put into the 
mouth of one of the characters in the popular Oriental 
Christian romance of Bavlaam and Josaphat, frequently 
attributed to St. John of Damascus (eighth century), but 
belonging probably to an even earlier date. So widely 
was it known in mediaeval Europe that it had been 
translated into Icelandic as early as the year 1200 A.D. 
The Apologist begins his address to the Emperor 
by stating that from natural religion he was led to 
believe in one God, whose attributes he describes. Man- 
kind, he adds, is divided into four races—Barbarians, 
Greeks, Jews, and Christians. (In the speech in Barlaam 
and Josaphat this division is replaced by one more in 
accordance with Eastern ideas—worshippers of false 
gods, Jews, and Christians.) The errors of the Barbarians 
are first exposed, afterwards those of the Greeks, but a 
digression is made at the conclusion of the exposure of 
Hellenism to shew how degraded the Egyptians are in 
their gross forms of superstition and idolatry. The 
writer next remarks, “It is a matter of wonder, O King, 
concerning the Greeks, whereas they excel all the rest 
of the peoples in their manners and in their reason, how 
thus they have gone astray after dead idols and senseless 
images.” ‘The Jews are treated by Aristides with such 
marked tenderness as to make us think that he wrote 
before the breach between the Church and Synagogue 
was complete. They worship one God, have compassion 
on the poor, bury the dead, and do other things accept- 


2096 TERTULLIAN’S APOLOGY. [CH. IX, 


able to God and well-pleasing tomen. Their chief error 
is that they do not really serve God, but rather the 
Angels. Aristides states first the belief the Christians 
have in one God, and secondly the purity of their lives. 
Their brotherly love is next described. When a 
Christian is poor the others fast for a day or two to 
get the means to relieve his necessities. The Emperor 
is invited to study the Christian writings and judge 
whether their apologist has spoken truly of them 
or not.} 

We are as it were transported to a 
different atmosphere when we peruse 
Tertullian’s masterly defence of the Chris- 
tian position. This is not an academic treatise addressed 
by a philosopher to an emperor of literary tastes, but 
a fierce polemic, written in time of persecution, to 
magistrates who refused to listen to a word in defence 
of Christianity and condemned the accused solely 
on their admission that they practised and refused to 
abandon a veligio illicita. Without professing to give 
even an outline of the arguments of Tertullian’s treatise, 
it may be well to state a few leading points in his 
defence of the Christian position. Tertullian is a 
writer with whom it is impossible always to agree, and 
who sometimes jars upon us: but no one, however 
repelled by his style, can deny his vigour, any more 
than he can refuse to admire the striking originality 
of his arguments because he is disinclined to accept 
them. With all his faults Tertullian is undoubtedly a 
writer of great genius, and his character is one of the 
most interesting studies in the history of the Church. 

His Apology commences by shewing the absurdity 
of condemning the Christians on the mere assumption that 
they were criminals worthy of death, and the illogicality 
of treating them differently from all other offenders 
against the law. The felon is tortured to confess his 
crime; the Christian, to deny it. Tertullian lays great 


Tertullian’s 
Apology. 


1, Cambridge 7exts and Studies, vol. 1., No. 1. The most interesting 
topics discussed in the Introduction are: The style and thought of the 
Apologist (p. 3); The traces of a Christian Symbol (p. 14 and p. 23); 
The connexion of thought between Aristides and Celsus (p. 19) ; as well as 
the discussion as to the date of the treatise. 


CH. Ix.] CHRISTIAN TOLERANCE, 207 


stress on the moral value of the Christian training: the 
very heathen admit this. ‘A good man’ they say ‘is 
Caius Seius, only that he is a Christian.’ ‘I am 
astonished’ says another ‘that a wise man like Lucius 
should become a Christian.’ In many cases the hated 
name is given when a man’s character is reformed. A 
more striking argument is supplied by Tertullian’s 
statement that “no one, not even a human being, will 
desire to be worshipped by any man against his will”. 
This strikes at the very root of the Pagan idea of 
religion being an affair of state. To the Christian the 
essence of religion is liberty of conscience, and this 
Tertullian concedes to allmen. ‘Tertullian is frequently 
held up as a typical bigot, but few remember to quote 
his noble words in favour of toleration: ‘Let one 
worship God; another Jupiter: let one raise his 
suppliant hands to the altar of Fides..... Seetoit 
whether this does not deserve the name of irreligion, 
to wish to take away the freedom of religion, and to 
forbid a choice of Gods, so that I may not worship 
whom I will, but be compelled to worship whom I 
do not will.” 

Like St. Paul, Tertullian believes that mankind 
received from God a natural enlightenment, and in the 
seventeenth chapter shews how men in phrases used in 
their common talk admit the existence of God. ‘God 
grant, ‘1 commend myself to God,’ and similar ex- 
pressions, are, he says, on every lip; and he adds 
the famous words, “O testimonium animae naturaliter 
Christianae.”1 One of the finest examples of Tertullian’s 
style is when he contrasts the hypocritical religious 
honours paid to the Emperor by the heathen with the 
honest prayers of the Christians for his welfare; and one 
of the most curious indications of the change in feeling 
since the Apostolic age is his assertion that the Christians 
pray for the Emperor because they believe that when the 
Roman empire comes to an end the course of this world 
will be ended.? 


1. Tertullian, Afo/. 17. 
2, Neander in his Antignostikus gives an excellent summary of the 


Apology. 


208 OBJECT OF THE APOLOGISTS. (CH. Ix. 


The Christian Apologies have an 

The Apologists historical interest rather than a practical 
Theologians, Value for us, inasmuch as the arguments 
are advanced to meet objections in many 

respects different from those used by the opponents of 
Christianity at the present day. The most cogent 
reasons for rejecting the Gospel, in the eyes of the vast 
majority of the heathen public, were—not the im- 
probability of a supernatural revelation, nor the defective 
character of the early records of the Church, but—the 
novelty of the religion, the calamities assumed to be 
occasioned by the abandonment of the worship of the 
gods of Rome, and the inferiority of our Lord to the 
sages and wonder-workers of antiquity. These objections 
are met with great power and eloquence by Tertullian, 
with conspicuous moderation and fairness by Minucius 
Felix,! and with much ingenuity by Arnobius and 
Lactantius; great stress being laid, especially by 
Tertullian, on the evidential value of contemporary 
Christian miracles.?. The prophetical writings of the 
Old Testament were considered to demonstrate the truth 
of Christianity; many, Theophilus of Antioch among 
others, being converted by the perusal of them. But 
the works of the Apologists contributed but little to 
the propagation of Christianity in comparison with 


the visible effects of its influence. The purity of the 


lives of the early Christians, their unshaken constancy 


in persecution, and their active benevolence, were most 


effectual proofs that the new religion was destined both 
to supplant and to destroy all the cults of the ancient 
world. ‘The stately fabric of the old heathenism, which 
in the first three centuries seemed impregnable, was 
fated to collapse before the end of the fourth, much in 
the same manner as the walls of the Canaanitish city 
fell down at the shout of conquering Israel. 


1. It is a most remarkable fact that Minucius Felix makes no 
mention of Christ save in chapter 29, where he says ‘*‘ Nam quod religioni 


nostrae hominem noxium et crucem eius adscribitis, longe de uicinia 
ueritatis erratis, qui putatis deum credi aut meruisse noxium aut potuisse 
terrenum. Ne ille miserabilis, cuius in homine mortali speo omnis 
innititur ; totum enim auxilium cum extincto homine finitur.” From this, 
Baehrens, his latest editor, infers that Minucius did not accept the divinity 
of Christ. Praefatzo, p. xi. 

2. Woodham, Z7etuliané Liber Apologeticus, c. iii. 


GRAPIT BIR «iX, 


THE ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH. 


THE question of the organization of 

The Church = the Christian Church in the earliest stages 
The Churches. Of its development is of great importance 
in view of the controversies of the present 

day; but before entering upon it, it is necessary to 
premise that it is subsidiary to one of much more 
permanent interest. The original conception of the 
nature of the Christian Church is naturally of far 
greater moment than the original position of its rulers ; 
the real point at issue being not whether a fixed order of 
government was from the first designed for the Christian 
community, but whether the unity of the Church was or 
was not an essential part of the scheme of its Founder.} 
Either our Saviour left His followers certain precepts, 
for the furtherance of which societies arose throughout 
the Roman empire, and in process of time became fused 
together into what was termed the Catholic Church;? or 
He formed His disciples into an essentially united body, 
branches of which soon sprang into life on all sides. In 
the former case the Church is a means devised by man 
to hand down a revelation from God; in the latter, a 
Divine Institution necessary to carry on the work begun 
by Jesus Christ. Now the unfolding of the Messianic 
ideal in the New Testament entirely supports the latter 
view. St. Peter’s confession that Jesus was the Christ 
implied that He was the Head of God’s divine Kingdom 
on earth, of which the disciples were subjects. To 
emphasise the sanctity of this Kingdom our Lord called 
it His Ecclesia—a name applied to the congregation of 
ancient Israel. Of this Ecclesia the Twelve were not so 


I. Illingworth, Doctrine of the Trinity, pp. 32 ff. 
2. The expression 7 Kafodtxi éxxAnola occurs first in Ignatius ad 
Smyrn. Vill. 2. 
oO 


210 ESSENTIAL UNITY OF THE CHURCH. [cH.x. 


much rulers as spiritual ancestors, representatives not of 
the priestly caste in the Levitical tribe, but of the twelve 
patriarchs of ancient Israel. From the Apostles sprang 
the Christian Ecclesia, destined to take the place of the 
old chosen people as the one holy nation on earth, 
composed of men “born not of blood, nor of the will of 
the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God”. ‘Thus it 
was that the believers called one another ‘ Brethren’ and 
were styled the ‘People’ (Aaos) of God and ‘Holy’ 
(yor). This fundamental unity of the Church as the 
representative of the new Israel may therefore be assumed 
as an historic fact. But before giving any account of the 
organization of the early Church, it is necessary to 
define three stages in its development, in order that 
the student may recognise in what manner different 
offices or rites were either called into being or modified 
by circumstances. 


(1) In the days of the Apostles a 

Stages in the’ Christian society naturally consisted of a 
evelopment of a is : 

the Church. Very limited number of members, and in 

Rome and other great cities two churches 

may have existed in independence of one another. It 

has been conjectured that the Jewish and Gentile 

Christians frequently formed separate communities in 

the same town, and that these did not unite in some 

cases for many years.? It is hardly reasonable to expect 


1. Even Harnack, who frequently speaks of ‘the churches’, admits 
that the Christians realised from the first that they belonged to the 
Kingdom of God, but he places this in heaven rather than on earth. 
‘‘ There is” he says ‘‘a holy Church on earth in so far as heaven is her 
destination.”” Azst. of Dogma (Engl. Transl.), vol. 11., p. 73. On the 
word £cclesta and the use of the titles ‘ Disciple’ and ‘Apostle’ in the 
Gospel, see Hort, Zhe Christian Ecclesia. It is noticeable that Aristides 
in his Apology speaks of the Christians as a yyévos of mankind, and 
Tertullian in the last chapter of his 4po/ogy says ‘‘ The blood of Christians 
is their seed.” A few of the most important illustrative passages from the 
New Testament are St. Matth, xvi. 16—18, St. John i. 12, 13, Gal. iv. 19, 
I Cor. iv. 15, 1 Peter ii. 9, 10, etc. 

2. Lightfoot, Galatians, p- 337: ‘‘This fact probably underlies the 
tradition that St. Peter and St. Paul were joint founders ; and it may explain 
the discrepancies i in the lists of the early bishops, which perhaps point to a 
double succession.” Milman, “7st. of Christiantty, vol. 1., p. 463, note: 

‘*T am likewise confident that in Rome, as in Corinth, there were two com. 
munities, a Petrine and a Pauline, a Judaizing and a Hellenizing Church.” 
See, however, Sanday and Headlam, Romans, p. xxVi. 


CH. X.] ORGANIZATION GRADUALLY DEVELOPED, 2II 


that in these small and widely scattered churches there 
should have been any rigid uniformity either of organ- 
ization or discipline ; nor must we look for a permanent 
and unchangeable form of government in any particular 
society. The subject of outward organization naturally 
did not appear of paramount importance to the earliest 
believers, who lived in constant expectation of the 
second coming of our Lord. Before the Christians could 
feel justified in giving serious attention to the question 
of administration, they had to realise that the return of 
our Lord to this earth was to be less speedy than they 
had anticipated. Nevertheless a certain uniformity was 
inevitable, from the fact that each Christian community 
existed for the threefold purpose of worship, brotherly 
association, and care for the poor and needy. 

(2) In the second stage of the development of 
the Church we perceive a great strengthening of the 
union between the different Christian communities. 
Two common enemies—heresy and persecution—made 
unity indispensable. Communication between different 
churches became more frequent, and with it a tendency 
to increased uniformity in practice as well as in faith. 
We have now entered upon the age of the Church’s 
struggle with the Roman government, which is character- 
ised by the military severity of the discipline maintained 
among Christians. 

(3) The third stage is reached at the conversion of 
Constantine. ‘The Church thenceforward became a 
body recognised by the State, which exacted in return 
a certain uniform standard of faith, government, and 
practice. 
ra the Asastotis The position of the rulers of the 

age distinction Church naturally varied at each of the 

between clergy periods above mentioned. In the first 
and ok Ma age the laity seem to have exercised 

' almost the same powers as the clergy. 

The Spirit manifested Himself in almost every member 
of the Christian body.! Naturally but little emphasis 
was attached to official status. In a society in which 
all lived in constant expectation of the end of the world, 


ttt Core xi. 777i ‘Aets xixt 6. 


212 PRIMITIVE RULE OF CHURCHES. [cH. xX. 


and all might claim the primitive chavismata, no sharp 
line of demarcation could exist bétween administrators 
of churches and other believers. 

But we must not overlook the fact that there are 
from the first indications of a defined hegemony. It 
may be that it was our Lord’s intention to found in the 
Apostolic order a peculiar grade. The position of the 
Twelve in regard to the rest of the faithful is certainly 
at first one of recognised superiority. ‘They are acknow- 
ledged as leaders by their converts.! 

St. Paul perhaps claims for himself 
The Church absolute independence of this primitive 
modelled on the : , 
Synagogue. Oligarchy, but St. Paul’s was an excep- 
tional case. This hegemony, however, 
loses itself in very early times in forms of government 
more strictly representative and of more familiar 
structure. As a rule the synagogue seems to have been 
taken as a model of a Christian community.? Even in 
the Acts the Church of Jerusalem has presbyters who 
share with the Apostles in the adjudication of momen- 
tous questions;® it may be sitting merely as assessors, 
but of this there is no proof. Outside Jerusalem these 
Elders certainly rank highest in the official system of 
this early period. The conversion of Asia Minor is 
followed by the institution of local ecclesiastical senates, 
“elders in every city,” appointed by Paul and Barnabas 
themselves. It is not difficult to recognise in these 
“elders” the py of a Jewish synagogue.‘ 

In Gentile churches the officers cor- 
jdentity of responding to the Elders were called 
Drains: Bishops (émricxotros).5 We must be careful 

not to be misled by the use of this term. 
In later times it was restricted to the presiding Elder of 
a church and was considered to denote a separate order. 
In the apostolic age it was synonymous with presbyter, 


x. St. John xx. 22, 23. St. Markiii. 14. Acts v. 12, 133 vi. 2; viii. 14. 

2. St. James (ii. 2) calls the Christian meeting cvvaywy%. Wordsworth, 
Ministry of Grace, p. 116. 

3: Acts mI 2A 22; 

4. Acts xiv. 23. Hastings, Dect. of the Bible, art. ‘Bishop’. 

5. Actsxx. 28. Tit. i.5—7. J. Ep. Clement, §44. The view that 
these officers were distinct from the beginning is upheld by Bernard, 
Pastoral Epistles (Camb. Gk. Test.) pp. Ivi. ff., not however with much 
SUCCESS. 


aoe 
- 


CH. x.] ADMINISTRATIVE AND SPIRITUAL GIFTS, 213 


and there is no mention of a single émicxomos in any 
church in the New Testament.! 

Closely connected with the Bishops 
were the Deacons.? This order is supposed 
to be derived from the seven appointed by the Apostles 
to assist them in the administration of the church funds. 
The name deacons is not employed on the occasion of 
the choice of the seven (though the phrase dvaxovety 
TpamréCats is used), and Philip, the only one of them 
mentioned in the later chapters of the Acts, is not called 
‘the deacon’ but é« tav ém7d.2 From the Pastoral 
Epistles we gather that the deacons were subordinate to 
the bishops and assisted in administering the property of 
the churches. 


The Deacons, 


It would seem as though the presbyters 
or bishops and the deacons possessed 
administrative rather than what may be termed spiritual 
functions. The prophets and teachers are placed by 
St. Paul next to the Apostles, as men commissioned by 
the Holy Ghost to do the work of the ministry. Itisa 
remarkable fact that the Apostle does not name the 
presbyters, bishops, or deacons when he enumerates those 
who have received the gifts of the Spirit, and that 
on both occasions* he places the work of converting 
unbelievers and founding congregations first, and keeps 
the permanent government and instruction of the church 
in the back-ground.® 

If we put together the details as to church adminis- 
tration in different parts of the world furnished by the 


Spiritual gifts. 


1. Eusebius, however, (4. £. 11. 4,) speaks of Timothy as first 
bishop of Ephesus (rparos thy émicxomhy ei\nxévat), and Titus of the 
churches of Crete. See Encyclopaedia Biblica, art. ‘Bishop’. Of the 
titles Presbyter and Bishop in the New Testament Bp. Wordsworth 
remarks, ‘‘ But this may be fairly said, that wherever the two are differen- 
tiated the title of ‘Bishop’ tends to be higher, and to be limited to a 
single person.” (Ministry of Grace, p. 119.) 

2. Phil. i, 1. Butin 1 Tim. iii. 1, 8, the éwicxomos is mentioned in 
the singular, the didxovoc in the plural. 

Acts xxi. 8. See the note on Eusebius #. £#. 11. 1, in the 
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. 

4. 1 Cor. xii. 28. Eph. iv. 11. Consistently the Acts represents 
Paul himself as selected with Barnabas for missionary work by the action 
of the Holy Spirit on certain ‘‘ prophets and teachers”, Acts xiii. I, 2. 

5. Lightfoot, PAclippians, Dissertation on ‘The Christian Ministry’. 


214 LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS, (CH. x 


New Testament and other early Christian writings, we 
shall probably be inclined to conclude 

Organization of that rigid uniformity of government was 
parr the not observed; but the scantiness of the 
New Testament: material at our command must make us 
cautious of drawing hastily any elaborate 


inferences in this matter, especially those of a negative 


character. 

In the Church of Jerusalem we find 
apostles, elder brethren,’ the seven,? and 
St. James the Lord’s brother as president in a position 
almost corresponding to that of the bishop in a later age. 
Here the episcopal system might seem to be in force.® 

ean At Corinth, on the other hand, a govern- 
orinth; : : A 
ment of quite different type is suggested. 
In the two Epistles to the Corinthians no local church 
officer is mentioned. The whole church is ordered 
by St. Paul to assemble to excommunicate an offend- 
ing member.# At their meetings to eat the Lord’s 
Supper there is no allusion to any officials or clergy. 
The spiritual gifts have been bestowed on all. The 
gifts of ‘prophesying’, ‘tongues’, ‘interpretation of 
tongues’, etc., mentioned as distributed in the Church 
are plainly unconnected with any official system.® 
Philippi ; At Philippi the “saints” are saluted 
i with “the bishops and deacons’’.® At 
Ephesus, as we understand from the Pastoral Epistles, 
there was a somewhat elaborate organiza- 
tion — bishops, deacons, church-widows, 
and ‘aged men’ (peoSvrepor), some of whom laboured 
in the word and teaching.’ The encyclical Epistle, how- 
ever, which in after times was associated closely with 
the name of Ephesus, makes no allusion to these 
functionaries. On the other hand we have here, besides 
the familiar ‘apostles’, ‘prophets’, ‘teachers’, the unusual 
nomenclature ‘pastors’, evangelists ’.° 


Jerusalem ; 


Ephesus ; 


1. Acts xy, 22, 23. 2. Acts vi. 33 xxi. 8. 

3. The list of the early bishops of Jerusalem is not reliable. Journal 
of Theol. Studies, July, 1901. It is perhaps more than a coincidence that 
the early Christians of Syria, like the first Mahommedans, desired to place 
a@ representative of the Founder’s family at their head. 

4. 1 Cor. v. 4. 5. 1 Cor. xiv. 26 foll. 6. Phil. i. 1. 

0% Time ty yy 8. Eph. il. 20; iv. II. 


cH. x.] APOSTLES AND PROPHETS. 215 


In the Epistle to the Romans nothing 
is said of the organization of their church, 
although in speaking of the chavismata of the Spirit, 
St. Paul enumerates ‘ prophecy ’, ‘ ministration’, ‘he that 
teacheth’, ‘he that imparteth’, and ‘he that presideth’.? 
We have in this epistle an allusion to Phoebe the 
deaconess of Cenchreae,? shewing that the administration 
of females was fully recognised. 

In the treatise known as the ‘ Teaching 
aS Sopra of the Twelve Apostles’, the prophets are 
wav dbdexa ama the most important persons in the Church. 
ordhwy. They alone may ‘give thanks’ at the 
Eucharist ‘as they will’,® i.e. unfettered 
by the formularies, also cited. Itinerant preachers are 
here termed by the honourable name of apostles. An 
apostle is only allowed to remain one day, or if need be 
two; and if he remains three, he is to be deemed a 
false prophet. He is on no account to ask for money. 
Prophets and teachers are however to be supported by 
the church, if they wish to settle in any particular spot.® 
The Christians are also to elect as bishops and deacons 
“men meek and not loving money, and truthful and 
approved : for unto you do they minister the ministry of 
the prophets and teachers,...they are they which are set 
in honour among you with the prophets and teachers.”’® 
This remarkable work bears no address, but there is 
some ground for supposing that its first readers belonged 
to an Egyptian community, who had passed through 
Judaism to Christianity. 
St. Clement of In the one authentic letter of St. 
Rome. Clement of Rome, written about a.p. 96, 
we find a more pronounced distinction between 


Rome. 


1. Rom. xii. 6—8. 2. Rom. xvi. f. 
3. Didaché, c. x.: rots 68 rpophrats érirpere edxaporety Soa Gédovoy. 
4. Jb., c. xi. mas 5¢ drdarodos épxduevos mpds tuas SexOjrw ws 
Kipios* od pevet 5¢ el uh jucpay wiav' édv dé 7H xpela, Kal rhv GAAnv’ Tpels 
be day pelry, Wevdorpodpyrns éoriv, 
Zb., c. xiii. : was 5 rpopyrns ddnOivds Oédrwv Kabjcbat pds buds 
Gitos éoriv Tis Tpophs avrov. woavrws diddoKados... 
Jb., c. xv. Bp. Wordsworth (A@inistry of Grace, p. 16) says of 
the ‘ Teaching’: ‘‘ The most noticeable feature...is the continuance of a 
charismatic and itinerant ministry of ‘ Prophets’ and ‘ Apostles’ side by 
side with a settled ministry of ‘ Bishops’ and ‘ Deacons’ ” 


a ae 


216 CLEMENT ON CHURCH OFFICES.  ([cH. x. 


clergy and laity. The spiritual charismata are no 
longer prominent. It is, however, worthy of notice 
that though St. Clement writes in the name of the 
church of Rome he nowhere speaks of himself as its 
bishop. Clement’s account of the Apostolic origin of 
church government is as follows: ‘“‘The Apostles 
received the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ ; 
Jesus Christ was sent forth from God. So then Christ 
is from God, and the Apostles are from Christ. Both 
therefore came of the will of God in the appointed 
order. Having therefore received a charge, and having 
been fully assured through the Resurrection of our 
Lord Jesus Christ and confirmed in the Word of God 
with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth 
with the glad tidings that the kingdom of God should 
come. So preaching everywhere in country and town 
they appointed their first-fruits, when they had proved 
them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons unto 
them that should believe. And this they did in 
no new fashion; for indeed it had been written con- 
cerning bishops and deacons from very ancient times; 
for thus saith the Scripture in a certain place, ‘I will 
appoint their bishops in righteousness and their deacons 
in faith’.’? (Isa. lx. 17, Lxx.) He further warns the 
Corinthians, “It will be no light sin for us, if we 
thrust out those who have offered the gifts of the 
bishop’s office unblameably and holily. Blessed are 
those presbyters who have gone before, seeing that 
their departure was fruitful and ripe; for they have 
no fear lest anyone should remove them from their 
appointed place.’? The above passages make it im- 
possible to question the existence of a clerical order 
in the Church at a very early date. We have not, 
however, reached the period of church-government by 
a single bishop, although the office already existed 
in name. In the New Testament the word ésricKozros 


1. Bp. Lightfoot’s translation of Clement Ep. J., c. 42. 

25° 1h Cae : 

Dr. Wordsworth (Bp. of Salisbury), A/nistry of Grace, p. 119. 

For two very different views of this passage of St. Clement see Dr. 

Moberly’s Ministerial Priesthood, and Canon Henson’s vigorous attack 
on this work in a book of sermons entitled Godly Unton and Concord. 


. = 
: pbs 


i 


cH.x.]) | THE GUILD AND ITS ézicxomos. 217 


is never used in the singular except in the Pastoral 
Epistles, where the context forbids us to assume that 
there was only one bishop in a church. We may now 
try to trace the steps by which government by a single 
bishop attained universal prevalence. 
In the early days of Christianity the 
pee of ve churches were institutions existing for the 
Primitive Church, PUrposes of charity, instruction, discipline, 
and worship. In many respects they 
resembled the numerous societies existing at this time 
throughout the Empire. When the government of 
Rome became a world-wide despotism, the ancient 
distinctions of rank and nationality gradually made 
way for the broader division of mankind into rich and 
poor. As local patriotism disappeared there arose an 
universal tendency in men towards combining together 
in various clubs and societies, in which the common 
worship of some deity together with meeting at certain 
regular intervals formed the bond of union.! It is a 
remarkable fact that in some cases the president of an 
épavos was called the émicxomos and its assembly the 
éexxrnoia. Although between the Christian bishop and 
the chief officers of the heathen guilds there were many 
essential points of difference, the administrative duties 
of both included the management of the funds of their 
respective societies.? 


1. The Abbé Pillet (A7stoire de Sainte Perpétue) refers to de Rossi 
(Roma Sotteranea) to shew how ‘“‘ the infant Church profited by the Roman 
laws about clubs (€racpia:) or associations of the poor (tenuiores) formed 
especially to secure an honourable burial for their members”. 

2. Hatch’s Bampton Lectures. Bp. Lightfoot’s Apostolic Fathers, 
Part II., vol 1. Renan, Les Apétres. Dr. A. Robinson says in his article 
‘Bishop’ in the Zxcyclopaedia Biblica, ‘‘The theory that the Christian 
éricxoros derived his title and functions from those of the officers of the 
Greek guilds or municipalities has not been established.” Bp. Wordsworth 
(Ministry of Grace, p. 120) thinks that ‘‘ probably Dr. Hatch is right”. He 
remarks however that this need not lessen the spiritual conception of the 
Bishop’s office. ‘‘ His treasury was in fact God... .This thought is well put 
in the Didascalia (ed. Lagarde, 11. 27, p. 260): ‘It is right that you should 
make your oblation to the Bishop either in person or through the Deacons: 
for he knows who are afflicted and gives to each according to what is 
suitable, so that it will not happen that one should receive several times 
the same day....and others not at all’.” For clubs and societies in the 
Empire see Dill, Roman Society from Nero to Marcus Aurelius, p. 254. 
Cf. Tertullian, AZo/., cap. xxxviil. 


218 THE CHURCH ELDERS. _ [cH x. 


The property of a Christian church 

Bishops assisted was in many cases considerable. In the 
ad eens ye Church of Rome by the middle of the 
church fands; Second century no less than forty-six 
presbyters, seven deacons, seven sub- 

deacons, forty-two acolytes, fifty-two exorcists, readers, 
and door-keepers, and more than fifteen hundred widows 
and poor persons, were supported by the faithful! The 
duty of managing the funds necessary for so complex 
an organization fell to the bishop, who naturally 
required the assistance of others. This was supplied 
by deacons, often, as at Rome, numbering seven, in 
memory of the seven appointed by the Apostles.2 The 
senior in age, standing, or ability, among the deacons 
was called the archdeacon, who was styled somewhat 
later ‘the eye of the bishop’, and who often succeeded 


him in office. 

The Christian Church had however 
The duty of higher functions than the distribution of 
Sisighed to the charitable funds. The instruction both 
presbyters; Of those who desired to become Chris- 
tians and also of the faithful, was 
necessarily an important duty. As in early days a 
high value was set upon the traditions of the Church,§ 
age was a great qualification for a teacher. Hence 
the older Christians in each community were its recog- 
nised instructors. The Pastoral Epistles direct that 
double honour is to be paid to the presbyters who 
labour in the word and doctrine. The presbyter or 
bishop (for the offices are as yet identical) is to be 

Svdaxtixos, ‘apt to teach’.4 
Even in the days of the Apostles it 
was necessary that offenders should be 
punished by exclusion from the Church. It appears 
that in some instances the whole body of believers 
assembled for this purpose,® but the duty of judging 
and punishing offenders soon devolved upon a few of 


Discipline; 


Euseb., 1. Z. Vi. 43. 


On the value attached to tradition see Iren., Hager. Il., c. 3. 
1 Tim. v. 17, iii. 2. 
I Cor. v. 4) 5- 


TP em 


Duchesne, Christzan Worship, cts Origin and Evolution, p. 344. 


CH. X.] ‘CLEMENTINE’ LITURGY. 219 


the senior and more influential of the brethren. The 
Church, like the Synagogue, had her own tribunal. 

In the earliest days of the Church it 
is probable that the prophets took a 
prominent position in directing the worship of the 
Christians, but their place was soon occupied by the 
chief officials in each community. As the brethren 
brought their weekly contributions for the maintenance 
of the church, it was natural that the bishop and his 
deacons, who received them, should take an important 
part in the services of the day. 

From the foregoing remarks it may be seen that 
all things were tending to raise some one individual 
to fill the highest place in each church. The man to 
whom the control of the property of the community 
had been entrusted would doubtless be one of the 
presbyters, and would soon be recognised as the 
representative and head of his church. That this was 
the case can be proved by instituting a comparison 
between Justin Martyr’s account of a Christian service 
(A.D. 138 or 139), and the so-called Clementine Liturgy 
of the Apostolical Constitutions. ‘This liturgy belongs 
to the age of persecution, since it contains a special 
prayer for the persecuting emperors, and is probably 
not later than the middle of the third century. Justin 
speaks of a president at the celebration of the Eucharist, 
but does not say definitely whether he means the bishop 
or not. But the Clementine Liturgy assigns the duty 
of presiding to the bishop, though it distinguishes him 
by the title of the elected bishop. He is also called 
chief priest (0 apyvepevs), a title applied in the earlier 
Teaching of the Twelve Apostles to the ‘prophets’. 
With the presidency at the Eucharist the bishop also 
took upon himself the right of public teaching, and 
in some churches he alone was allowed to preach. 
The peculiar circumstances of the second century com- 
bined to increase the importance of the bishop in the 
churches throughout the world. And it is possible 
that the law by which every corporate body was 
required to have an ‘actor’ or representative may 


Worship. 


1. Hammond, Liturgies, Eastern and Western, p. 41. 


a : 


a od 


220 EPISCOPACY NECESSARY. [CH. x. 


have helped to make episcopacy universal in the 
Empire.! 

The Christians began at an early date 
rap tag ame fol to realise that their very existence de- 
different churches pended greatly on the completeness of 
in the face of their organization. Persecution convinced 
Persie: | them of the necessity of presenting an 

undivided front to the world without, 
and the prevalence of heresy shewed the need of 
checking all unauthorised teaching within. It is pos- 
sible that St. John had sought to strengthen the churches 
of Asia Minor against this two-fold danger by making 
the bishop the chief ruler of every Christian society. 
Ignatius’ ardent exhortations to obey the bishops and 
their presbyters were no doubt due to his conviction 
that the great hope of the Church lay in the readiness 
of her members to act in concert with their leaders. 
Seen in this light, his very forcible language on the 
subject of obedience to the rulers of the Church finds 
justification in the seriousness of the crisis.? It should, 
however, be borne in mind that in Ignatius the bishop 
is head of what now would be termed a parish rather 
than of a diocese. 
apni ee When Ignatius wrote® his epistles to 
universality of the churches of Asia the institution of 
episcopacy by end episcopal government was unquestionably 
or eceone contnrs, firmly established among the Christians 
’ of that province. But it is not so easy 
to prove that this was already the case in all parts of 
the world. As, however, by the year 180 A.D. every 
church had its bishop, it may be useful to examine 
the causes of this uniformity. When persecution was 
raging in any particuiar church the believers needed 
the support and sympathy of others in their trials. 


zr. Wordsworth, of. czt., p. 120. Duchesne (Origznes du Culte 
Chr., p. 8) quotes Gaius in the D7gest, 111. 4. I. 

2. See especially Aph. iv., Magn. vil. wpoxabnuévov rot értcxdmrov 
els rirrov Oeod, kat THv mpecBuTépwr eis TUToV cuvedpiov TwWY drogTé\wr, Kat 
Tav Siaxdvwyv, Tav éuol yAuKuTdrwv, wemirevpévwr Saxorviav "Inco Xpicrod. 
Magn. vi. 

3. We assume on the authority of Bp. Lightfoot the genuineness of 
the Ignatian Epistles; but see swgra, p. 115, note 6. 


_ 


CH. X.] ITS GROWTH INEVITABLE, 221 


The Christians of Lyons and Vienne in Gaul, for 
example, sent an account of their sufferings to their 
brethren in Asia and Phrygia. (a.v. 177.) Again, when 
the immediate disciples of the Apostles had passed 
away and false teachers were claiming Apostolic 
authority in support of their doctrines, the churches 
communicated with one another to enquire whether 
their traditions were in correspondence, or to convey 
warnings of the coming of some corrupter of the 
Truth. Thus, when the Montanists obtained a footing 
at Rome, Praxeas, an Asiatic, warned the bishop that 
they had been excommunicated in his country, and 
procured their condemnation.! In like manner, the 
question as to the correct date for the observance of 
Easter brought Polycarp to Rome to discuss the 
matter with Anicetus.? (a.p. 154.) This constant inter- 
communication between the most distant members of 
the Christian body would tend to the adoption of 
a uniform system of government, even if other circum- 
stances had not contributed to make the episcopate 
almost a necessity in every church, 

The practice of hospitality, in our 
days regarded as a pleasurable luxury, 
was an indispensable duty among the early Christians. 
When a believer entered a strange city he enquired 
for the Christian bishop, and the welcome accorded 
by him was the new-comer’s passport in the local 
fraternity. But as the Church increased in numbers, 
impostors were frequently in the habit of presuming 
upon the credulity of the Christians. To prevent this, 
it was customary for genuine Christians to travel 
with a certificate signed by the bishop as the repre- 
sentative of their church. In this way great in- 
fluence was acquired by the bishop, who, by simply 


Hospitality. 


1. Praxeas himself fell into heresy. Tertullian’s scathing criticism of 
the part Praxeas took in expelling the Montanists is not wholly undeserved ; 
**Itaque duo negotia diaboli Praxeas Romae procuravit, prophetiam expulit 
et haeresim intulit, Paracletum fugavit, et Patrem crucifixit.”—Adv. 
Praxeam, i. 

2. Irenaeus’ letter to Victor, quoted in Euseb., . £. v. 24. 

3. Even in the Pastoral Epistles it is said that a bishop must be 
dirdEevos. 1 Tim. iii. 2. Titusi. 8. 


222 CHURCH ORGANIZATION IN AFRICA. [cu.x. 


refusing to grant ‘ letters of commendation’,! as they were 


called, could exclude a man from Christian fellowship in 


every part of the world. 

When it became the custom to hold 
councils to which the churches sent repre- 
sentatives, a further impetus was given to the growth 
of the episcopal form of government. The Christians 
soon came to regard their representatives at the Councils 
of the universal Church as their natural leaders. 

It will be observed that the growth of a uniform 
system of church government by bishops, priests and 
deacons, was the work alike of time and of circum- 
stances. In the Apostolic age the terms bishop and 
presbyter meant practically the same, and there was 


Councils. 


much variety in the way in which different churches were 


organized. Inthe next generation the Christians in Asia 
were certainly governed by bishops, assisted in spiritual 
matters by presbyters and in temporal by deacons; a 
system which was rapidly adopted elsewhere. By the 
end of the second century the episcopate was everywhere 
established. Called into being chiefly in order to pro- 
vide for organization and discipline, the presbyters or 
bishops soon found spiritual functions devolving upon 
them as well. As the manifestations of the chavismata 
disappear, they become exclusively responsible for the 


leadership of the spiritual exercises of their people. The 


firm establishment of a defined clerical order both 
attested and assisted the aim of the Christian Church 
to attain a permanent footing in the Empire. 
Although we are in this chapter dealing 
an Crrren properly with the origins of ecclesiastical 
organization, institutions, it may not be out of place to 
sketch briefly the organization of the African 
Church in the middle of the third century and the views 
of Cyprian on the subject, The great bishop must have 
built his theories on what was generally acknowledged 
to be the ancient constitution of the Christian Church, 
and his talent for organization must have been exercised 
on existing materials. That Cyprian increased the 
dignity of the clerical office in the eyes of all Christians 


1. Literae communicatoriae, éricrodal cucrariKal. 


cH. x. ] CYPRIAN AND THE EPISCOPATE,. 223 


is undeniable, but neither the episcopal rights and 
powers nor the conception of a Catholic Church were 
invented by him. He merely demonstrated the necessity 
of the former, and the practical reality of the latter. 
According to Cyprian every congregation under a 
bishop is an ‘Israel’ in itself, and the parallelism is 
worked out with the most minute exactitude. The title 
*sacevdos’ is applied not to the presbyters but to the 
bishop, who is the representative of the ‘priests’ of the 
Old Covenant. The presbyters as the successors of the 
Levites live on the offerings of the people, exempt from 
worldly cares. The doctrine of the Apostolic succession 
is expressly declared. When Matthias was ordained he 
was made a ‘bishop’, and every bishop, by the source 
from which he derives his office, is ‘the apostle of his 
flock’. The bishop is also judge of his people, and in 
this he is Christ’s vicegerent. ‘Those who disobey him 
are guilty of the sin of Korah, since all the laws up- 
holding the authority of Aaron were intended ultimately 
to apply to the Christian episcopate. This theory of 
the Christian Hierarchy, so far from being developed by 
Cyprian in the course of his struggle to maintain the 
discipline of the church of Carthage, is propounded in 
the earliest of his epistles written as bishop of Carthage. 
The African theory of church government in the third 
century as unfolded by him has been described by the 
late Archbishop Benson as “‘a legitimate development of 
the principles of the Apostolic Church, parallel with and 
analogous to the growing light on cardinal doctrines, 
which similarly nothing but use could illustrate”. 
Cyprian enumerates three requisites of a regular 
episcopate, and he adds that in Africa these were re- 
garded as essentials: (i) the choice of the bishops of the 
province assembled at the vacant see, (ii) the presence and 
support of the Plebs, and (iii) the judgment of God. What 
is meant by the last-named is uncertain; it may be that 
the very fact of a man being thus made a bishop is 
regarded as a judgment of God that he was worthy. 


1. Cyprian, Z. Ixix. 8. See also Apost. Const. vitI., sec. ii. In 
the prayer for the bishop about to be consecrated, the high priests of 
the Old Covenant, Melchizedek, Aaron, &c., are especially mentioned. 


224 OPPOSITION TO HIERARCHY. — [cu. x 


Although at this very time the Roman presbyters during 
the sixteen months vacancy of the see, after the martyr- 
dom of Fabian, seem to have naturally undertaken the 
administrative work which would otherwise have fallen 
to the bishop, in Cyprian’s writings the presbyters 
have no powers nor rights comparable to those of the 
episcopate. It is the bishops who meet for the govern- 
ment of the church, and the presbyters in common with 
the laity have merely the right of signifying their 
approval when the bishop is elected by his compro- 
vincials. ‘The deacons at this time, at Rome, where in 
accordance with Apostolic practice there were but seven, 
were, alike from their limited number and responsible 
financial duties, very prominent officials. To their care 
the bishop, Fabian, the contemporary of Cyprian, assigned 
the fourteen regions of the city. At Carthage the im- 
portance of this order is attested by the influence 
exercised by Felicissimus, and by the fact that they 
were styled ‘the third priesthood’.’ 
: The inherent dignity of the clerical 
about the power status was not established without several 
of theclergy: contests. ‘The first, Montanism, turned on 
Montanism; the nature of the spiritual gifts. The 
mon ee second, Novatianism, on the admission of 
penitents. The third, associated with the 
great name of Origen, affected the right of persons not 
ordained to teach in the Church. 
Montanism arose in Phrygia among the followers of 
a certain Montanus, who claimed a transcendent inspira- 
tion as a prophet.? (a.p. 130.) Montanus is alleged to 
have taught that the age of the Spirit had come, and 


1. See the late Archbishop Benson’s Cyprian: his Life, his Times, 
his Work. For Cyprian’s view of the episcopate, p. 31 foll.; for the con- 
stitutional position of the presbyterate, p. 323 foll.; for the deacons at 
Rome, p. 67; for Felicissimus, p. 114 foll. Cyprian’s 67th epistle (ed. 
Hartel) is particularly referred to on p. 35 foll. The points of difference 
between the Cyprianic view of a bishop and the modern idea are brought 
into contrast. 


2. Eusebius (Z. Z. tv. 27, v. 14) dates the rise of Montanism about 
A.D. 182; Epiphanius, A.D. 135 and 157; the Chronzcom Paschale, A.D. 
182. M. de Soyres, in his Essay on Montanism, thinks Montanus began 
to preach A.D. 130. I am greatly indebted to this Essay for many valuable 
hints on the subject of Montanism. 


CH. X.] ANTI-CLERICAL SCHISMS. 225 


that Christ’s promises about the Paraclete were fulfilled 
in himself. “wo prophetesses, Prisca and Maximilla, 
left their husbands to follow him, and prophesied to the 
great edification of the Phrygians. The Catholic bishops 
of Asia considered them to be possessed by evil spirits, 
and tried to exorcise them, but this was not permitted by 
the Montanists. The fanaticism spread, and many of the 
more ardent Christians embraced the doctrine of the new 
dispensation of the Spirit. The Lyonnese martyrs wrote 
from their prison to beseech the bishop of Rome not to 
quench the Spirit by undue severity to the Montanists. 
(A.D. 177.) In Africa, Tertullian embraced the new 
opinions; and it has been asserted that the famous 
martyrs, Perpetua, Felicitas and their companions, were 
among those who held Montanist views. 

Montanism appears to have been embraced in Rome 
and Carthage by a party which was opposed to the 
growing power of the clergy. In recognising the right of 
their so-called prophets to take a position in the Church 
above the bishops, the followers of Montanus endeavoured 
to restore what they imagined to be a feature of the 
Apostolic age, by making authority yield to spiritual 
illumination. They resembled the Quakers in their 
refusal to recognise that any spiritual gifts are conferred 
by ordination, and in seeking the guidance of direct 
inspiration on all occasions. ‘Their doctrine, that those 
who had committed deadly sin could not be restored te 
the visible Church by any human authority, was in 
conflict with the claim made by the Catholic clergy to 
re-admit to Christian communion those who had fallen.’ 
Their condemnation of all pleasure and amusement, as 

well as of second marriages, proves that they aimed at 
the ideal of a Puritan Church, and a more exclusive 


1. For the views cf a Montanist on the subject of Church discipline 
see Tertullian’s De Pudicitia, The best side of this primitive Puritanism is 
seen in the visions of Perpetua and Felicitas recorded in the Acs of their 
Martyrdom, recently edited by Prof. Rendel Harris. The Abbé Pillet 
(Hist, de Ste. Perpétue, p. 54) vigorously defends Perpetua and Felicitas 
against the charge of Montanism. Mgr. Freppelin his 7evtu//ian suggests 
that the author of the Acta was a Montanist. The question is decided by 
the Abbé on purely 2 frierz grounds: ‘‘1l’Eglise est infallible dans ses 
jugements, qui ont pour objet la canonisation des saints.” 

bs 


226 METHOD OF CHOOSING BISHOPS.  [cu. x. 


Christianity. The subsequent triumph of the bishops 
and clergy was in this case the triumph of a wider 
conception of the nature of the Church. 


Novatianism was the result of a series 
of struggles in Rome and Carthage, which 
are related in another chapter. It culminated in the 
election of Novatianus to the Roman see in opposition 
to Cornelius. (A.D. 251.) The Novatians denied the 
power of the Church to re-admit grievous sinners, but in 
other respects they were scrupulously orthodox. 


At Alexandria the question assumed 

The case of a very different form. It is characteristic 
Dewetrius, of the two churches that at Rome the 
right to rule and at Alexandria the right 

to teach was the source of the dispute. Origen was the 
greatest scholar in the Church of the third century. 
His lectures were attended by multitudes, and his 
Scriptural studies were the marvel of his age. But he 
was a layman, and by an act of youthful fanaticism had 
rendered himself ineligible for holy orders, Demetrius, 
the Alexandrian bishop, no doubt jealous of Origen’s fame 
and possibly also suspicious of his orthodoxy, acted with 
so great animosity that Origen was forced to leave the 
city. He allowed his friends, the Palestinian bishops, 


Novatianism, 


to ordain him a presbyter, and returned to Alexandria. 


(A.D. 231.) Demetrius drove him from the city, and he 
was not allowed to return, even after the accession of his 
friend and pupil Heraclas to the episcopate; nor did his 
successor Dionysius, though he greatly admired Origen, 
reverse the act of Demetrius. 


Election and church elected the bishop, the presbyters, 


and other inferior ministers? In some 
instances, however, the clergy are found nominating the 
candidates for offices in the Church, and the people 


1. Chap. XI. 


2, The subject of election in the early Church is beset with diffic ulties, 
In the election of the seven deacons the people chose them and the Apostles 
gave them their office. (Acts vi. 3—6.) See the late Dr. Hatch’s article 
on ‘Ordination’ in the Dzctzonary of Christian Antiquities. 


As a rule the whole fraternity of every 


J. ad 
“in ee 
ee ie ~ 
a tee 
rin (ea 
4 
7 


cH.x.] METHOD OF CHOOSING BISHOPS. aay. 


confirming their choice.! It seems unquestionable that 
the bishop presided at all ordinations and usually at 
baptisms.” But it has been debated whether in the 
earliest days the bishop entered office by virtue of a 
consecration, or whether he exercised his function ex 
officio as president of the presbyteral college. It must 
not be forgotten that many, even Roman Catholic 
writers, consider that there is still no inherent superiority 
of a bishop over a presbyter, but that both are members 
of the same order. To this day in the Roman Catholic 
Church the three chief orders in the ministry are not 
Bishops, Priests and Deacons, but Priests, Deacons and 
Subdeacons.? Yet where we have record of any con- 
secration in the early period the newly-elected bishop 
receives it from the bishops of the province. With one 
doubtful exception we find no single case of a bishop 
being consecrated by presbyters.4 There was no necessity 
for a man to pass through all the lower offices before 
attaining the priesthood or even the episcopate.> Never- 
theless it was considered highly desirable that ministers 


1. Sometimes the reverse was the case, and the right of approval of the 
popular choice rested with the bishop or with the clergy. From Clement’s 
Epistle to the Corinthians, c. 44, it seems that after the first appointment 
of ministers by the Apostles, the people assented to the choice made by men 
of repute (€AAoyluwy avipwy cuvevdoxnadens rijs éxxAnolas wdons). 


2. Ignatius ad Smyrn., c. 8: ovk éébv éoriv xwpls Tod értoxdbrov, obre 
Bamrifey, ore dydrny roety. 


3. The Rev. J. J. Lias, in an article in the 7heological Monthly, 
Feb. 1890, quotes Morinus de Sacris Ordinationibus. ‘The majority of 
the Schoolmen were of opinion that ‘‘ Episcopatum per se nihil aliud dicere 
quam officium, dignitatem, potestatem, auctoritatem sacerdoti datam multo 
ampliorem et augustiorem per consecrationem.” 


4. Bingham (Axzzq., bk. I1., ch. iil., § 5) says that some quote Jerome 
(Ep. 85, 4d Zvagr.) to prove that the presbyters of Alexandria ordained 
their own bishop to the time of Heraclas and Dionysius, but he thinks 
(perhaps rightly) that Jerome only refers to the election and not to the cons 
secration of the bishop. But see also Bp. Wordsworth, Ministry of Grace, 
pp. 135 ff., who considers that both at Rome and Alexandria “‘ there were 
at first only two orders, the governing order acting normally as a corporate 
body or college”. (p. 142.) 


| 5. The case of Cyprian is an example of promotion from a layman to 
the priesthood without passing through the diaconate. Ambrose was 
elected bishop of Milan before he was even baptized. Wordsworth, 
op. cit., p. 130. 

P2 


228 ADMISSION OF CONVERTS. [CH. X. 


in the Church should work their way upwards to higher 
positions, and promotions per saltum were looked upon 
with disfavour. Such ordinations were forbidden in the 
Eastern Church at the Council of Sardica (a.p. 343); but 
the practice continued in the Latin Church till the ninth 
century.! 

In the earliest days of the Faith a 
convert was sometimes admitted to the 
full privileges of a Christian without any 
previous probation. All that was required before bap- 
tism was a belief in Christ ;? nor is there any mention in 
the New Testament of a period of instruction preceding 
the administration of the rite of Baptism. When, how- 
ever, the Church became a more organized society, it 
was considered advisable that those who desired to 
become Christians should submit to a course of pre- 
paration before being finally enrolled as members of the 
Church. This period of instruction and probation 
naturally varied in different churches, and sometimes 
extended over three years.‘ 


A person who desired to become a 
Christian was asked in the assembly of 
the church from what motives he made the request. He 
was further examined as to his calling in hfe. If he 
practised an unlawful profession, he was told that he 


Converts and 
Tests. 


Catechumens. 


1. See the evidence quoted in the Responsto Archiepiscoporum 
Angliae, c. XIII, note 2. In Rome it was customary to ordain sub- 
deacons intended for the priesthood, deacons, and priests, at the same 
service. (Duchesne, Christian Worship, p. 355, Engl. Trans.) 

2. Acts viii. 37. The confession of the eunuch of Candace to Philip 
is not found in the best MSS. It is, however, a very ancient Western 
addition. Rom. x. 10, ordmare 6¢ duoroye’rat els owrnplay may imply a 
public baptismal confession. 


3. In the Acts the following are said to have been baptized: The 
converts on the day of Pentecost, Acts ii. 41. The Samaritans who 
believed Philip’s preaching, Acts viii. 12. Simon Magus, Acts viii. 13. 
The eunuch of Candace, Acts viii. 38. St. Paul, Acts ix. 18. Cornelius 
and his companions, Acts x. 47, 48. Lydia and her household, Acts xvi. 15. 
The jailor at Philippi and his household, Acts xvi. 33. Crispus with 
all his house, and many of the Corinthians, Acts xviii. 8. The disciples 
of the Baptist at Ephesus, Acts xix. 5. 

4. The Council of Elvira, canon 42, fixes two years as the period fora 
person to remain a Catechumen. The Afostolic Comstitutions (VIII., c. 47) 
make it three years. 


CH..X. INSTRUCTION OF CONVERTS. 229 


must either abandon it,’ or give up all idea of being 
accepted. If all seemed satisfactory he was admitted 
by the imposition of hands to the rank of a Catechumen. 
It has been inferred that there were no less than four 
orders of Catechumens: those who were instructed 
privately outside the church; tlie ‘Hearers’, who were 
permitted to listen to sermons and the reading of the 
Scriptures; the ‘ Kneelers’, who were allowed to remain 
till the prayer for the Catechumens; and lastly the 
‘Competentes’, or the immediate candidates for Baptism.? 
This somewhat complicated system of classification does 
not seem to have been generally received, and the 
Catechumens were usually divided into two great 
classes, the ‘Audientes’ and the ‘Competentes’. 
Those who had been received as 
Catechumens were committed to the 
charge of the Catechist, an officer of the 
church, not necessarily in holy orders. The unity of 
God and His relation to the world was the first doctrine 
on which the Catechist insisted, then followed instruc- 
tion as to the work of Christ and of the Holy Spirit. 
Morality, the duty towards God and man, and the 
importance of purity of life, were next inculcated. The 
reading of Scripture by the Catechumens was encouraged, 
and in some churches a course of Scriptural study was 
prescribed. Athanasius says that the books read by the 
Catechumens were the Teaching of the Apostles and 
the Shepherd of Hermas.2 From Bede we gather that 
the Catechumens of more ancient times were expected to 
be able to repeat portions of the four Gospels from 
memory. 
The ‘Disciplina During the period of instruction, the 
Arcani’. Catechumens learned that there were 
secrets which were only committed to the baptized. 


Method of 
instruction. 


1. All callings which encouraged immorality, idolatry, or theatrical or 
gladiatorial exhibitions, were considered unlawful. Const. Eccl. <igypt., in 
Bunsen’s Analecta Ante-Nicaena, 

2. Bingham, Axézg., bk. x., ch. ii. Duchesne, Christian Origins, 
p- 292, Engl. Trans. 

3. Bingham, of. czt., bk. x., ch. i., § 7. | 

‘< Pulcher in ipsa ecclesia mos antiquitus inolevit, ut his, qui cate- 
chizandi, et Christianis sunt sacramentis initiandi, quatuor evangeliorum 
principia recitentur.” Beda, De 7aé., lib. 2. Quoted by Bingham, Jvc. czt. 


230 THE CHRISTIAN MYSTERIES. (CH. x. 


Every time they were present at a service they 
were reminded, by their dismissal before the most 
solemn rites were celebrated, that there were mysteries 
known to none but Christians. During the last weeks 
of preparation they received instruction in some of the 
secrets of the Faith. The doctrine of the Trinity, the 
Creed, and the Lord’s Prayer, were taught during the 
forty days before baptism, the last-named, according to 
St. Augustine, being only communicated a week before 
the administration of that Sacrament.} 

It is an unquestionable fact that, from 
the very first, baptism was considered’ 
. absolutely necessary for every person who entered the 
Christian community. Even St. Paul’s miraculous con- 
version did not dispense with the obligation to be 
baptized. The only instance of unbaptized persons 
being regarded as Christians was that of Catechumens 
who had suffered martyrdom. In the language of the 
Church, these were ‘ baptized in their own blood’. The 
Teaching of the Twelve Apostles gives the following’ 
directions as to the administration of this Sacrament: 
“But concerning Baptism, baptize thus: having said 
beforehand all these things, baptize ye in the name of 
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, 
in living water. But if thou hast not living water, 
baptize in the other water; andif thou canst not in cold, 
then in warm. But if thou have not either, pour water 
thrice upon the head in the name of the Father, and of 
the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.’? 
amit eae The ceremony of Baptism was far 

Baptism, | More solemn in the primitive Church than 

it is at the present day, and abounded in 
beautiful symbolism. Justin Martyr in his first Apology 
gives a description of a very simple rite ;* but Tertullian, 


Baptism. 


1. Dict. of Christian Antzq., art. ‘ Disciplina Arcani’, vol.1., p. 565a. 
Only baptized persons were allowed to use the Lord’s Prayer, which St. 
Chrysostom calls the evx# micra@v, because only believers could properly call 
God their Father. St. Augustine (De Syméolo, 1. 16) asks “* Quomodo 
dicunt ‘Pater noster’ qui nondum nati sunt?” 

2. Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, c. vii. Notice that the practice 
of aspersion is allowed as an alternative to immersion. 

3. Justin Martyr, AZo/. 1. 61, 65, 67. 


ee 


CH. X.] EARLY BAPTISMAL RITES. 231 


fifty years later, supplies a more detailed account. 
The seasons for Baptism were Easter and Pentecost, 
but he adds “Every day is the Lord’s, every hour, every 
time is suitable for Baptism: if (the day) adds to its 
solemnity, it makes no difference to its validity.”? 
The candidates for Baptism prepared for their admission 
to full Christian privileges by prayer and fasting, and 
made open confession of their sins. Then followed 
a solemn renunciation of the devil, his pomp and his 
angels. After this the Catechumens were conducted 
to the water and were questioned as to their faith as 
they stood ready for baptism; they were thrice im- 
mersed. After the ceremony it was customary for the» 
bishop to anoint the newly-baptized with oil and to 
lay his hands on them that they might receive the 
Holy Ghost. The Eucharist was celebrated, and in 
some instances those who had been baptized partook 
of a mixture of milk and honey as a sign that they 
had now entered the Promised Land.? Although infant 
baptism existed from the first,? the majority of Christians 
in the second century doubtless entered the Church as 
adults; and consequently everything was done to make 
the baptismal ceremony as impressive as possible. 
Se aerbe Slat The Eucharist, for by this name the 
' primitive Christians usually designated 
the sacred act‘ which our Saviour commanded His 


1. De Baptismo,c. 20. ‘*Caeterum omnis dies Domini est, omnis 
hora, omne tempus habile baptismo est: si de solemnitate interest, de gratia 
nihil refert.”’ 

2. Tertullian, De Corona Militis, c.3: ‘‘Dehinc ter mergitamur amplius 
aliquid respondentes quam Dominus in Evangelio determinavit. Inde 
suscepti lactis et mellis concordiam praegustamus.” 

3. Although the baptism of infants is nowhere mentioned in the 
New Testament, it may be inferred that the practice was not unknown from 
the fact that the Jews baptized infant proselytes. The custom is nowhere 
condemned by our Lord or His Apostles. St. Paul regarded the children 
of believers as dy:ot and therefore presumably eligible for baptism. (1 Cor. 
vii. 14.) The testimony of Irenaeus is the earliest direct evidence in favour 
of infant baptism. (/aer., bk. I1., c. 39.) Tertullian was opposed to 
infant baptism, but this was due no doubt to his Montanistic view of the 
impossibility of post-baptismal sin being pardoned. ‘‘If men understand 
the grave responsibility of Baptism,” he says, ‘‘they will fear its acceptance 
more than its postponement.” (De Baptzsmo, c. 20.) . 

4. So the Didache says wept 5¢ ris evyapiorlas obrws ebyapiorioare, 
and Justin Martyr in his second Afology calls the Bread and Wine 
evxapioTia. 


232 THE ‘EUCHARIST Ae > x 


disciples to repeat in memory of Him, has always 
been regarded with the deepest reverence. This Sacra- 
ment, instituted on the most solemn night of our Lord’s 
earthly ministry, was from the first regularly repeated 
by His grateful disciples. The ‘Breaking of Bread’ 
is mentioned amongst the most important religious 
duties of the Church at Jerusalem. When St. Paul 
preached to the believers at Troas, they had assembled 
by night to break bread on the first day of the week.? 
The Corinthians were taught by the Apostle that the 
loaf which they broke was the Communion of the 
Body of Christ, and the cup which they blessed was 
the Communion of His Blood.’ This Sacrament seems 
to have been so natural a part of a Christian’s life 
that the writers of the New Testament seldom allude 
to it. In the Gospel according to St. John its institu- 
tion is not so much as mentioned, though the existence 
of the Sacrament is considered by some to be assumed 
by the Evangelist to have been known by his readers. 
This circumstance, added to a natural reticence on so 
sacred a mystery, accounts also for the comparatively 
meagre statements on this subject in the writings of 
the ante-Nicene Fathers.‘ 

The difficulty of defining exactly the 
character of the Eucharistic Service in 
the age of the Apostles is enhanced by the fact that 
it was either preceded or followed by a meal called 
the Agape; which, however, in the second century was 
not considered to be an integral part of the Sacrament.® 
As Waterland very properly points out, it is doubtful 
if St. Paul means the Eucharist or the Agape by the 
term ‘Lord’s Supper’,® and whether the Sacrament is 
not always spoken of in the New Testament as the 
‘Breaking of Bread’. If it appears repugnant to our 
modern ideas as to the reverence with which this 
Sacrament should be regarded, that it should have 


The Agape. 


1. Acts ii. 42, 46. 2. Acts xx. 7, 1%. ger Cor x. 16, 

4. For Patristic testimony on the Eucharist, see Hebert’s Zhe Lora’s 
Supper: Uninspired Teaching. 

5. Tertullian, 4Zo/., c. 39. Clement Alex., Paedag. Il. 1, 4 

6. Waterland, Ox the Eucharist. 


CH. Xx.] THE LOVE-FEAST. 233 


formed part of a meal, we must not forget that it was 
instituted as such by our Lord, and that by the be- 
lievers in the days of the Apostles the spiritual presence 
of Christ at all times was fully realised. But this high 
ideal could not be maintained, and the abuses of the 
Agape in the church of Corinth shewed that the time 
had come to separate the Eucharist from it. 
It has been suggested by Bp. Lightfoot, 
Separation of the that when Pliny’s action in Bithynia 
the Agape. forced the Christians to abandon the 
Agape, they began to make a distinction 
between the common meal and the Eucharistic service.’ 
In Justin Martyr’s description of a Christian assembly 
there is no mention of the Agape, and in process of time 
it ceased to exist in the Church, though traces of it are 
found in the fifth century. Tertullian testifies that even 
in his time it was attended with abuses, and though 
some allowance must be made for his Montanist opinions 
when he wrote the treatise de Jejuniis, he probably 
expresses the opinion of many members of the Church in 
his day on the subject of the Agape.? 

Once the Eucharist stands alone, it is easier to trace 
its subsequent development till we arrive at the period 
of fixed liturgies. The successive testimonies of St. 
Paul, the Tcaching of the Twelve Apostles, Clement of 
Rome, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and the Apostolic 
Constitutions, are the best introduction to a study of 
the subject. 

In the First Epistle to the Corinthians 

History of the St, Paul portrays a Christian assembly 
Eucharistic met for the purpose of eating the Lord’s 
(a) St. Paul; Supper. Every man brought his own food, 
and the celebration of the Eucharist was 

part of the supper. Already, however, there were signs 
that the reverence due to so solemn a ceremony as par- 
taking of the Bread and Wine in memory of the Saviour’s 
action “the same night that He was betrayed” was 
likely to be lost in the excesses of a common meal. 
The Corinthians were not able to realise the high ideal 


1. Apostolic Fathers, Part II., vol. 1., pp. 52 and 386. 
2. Kurtz, Church History, § 36. Tertullian, De Jejun.,c. 1. 


234 EARLY EUCHARISTIC PRAYERS. _ [cH. x, 


of the presence of our Lord at every Christian gathering, 
and their celebration of the Lord’s Supper was disgraced 
by ostentation on the part of the wealthy, and often by 
scenes of drunkenness.! The awful reproofs and warnings 
of St. Paul against the abuse of the Sacrament must be 
read by the light of these circumstances.? 
awrbe ee In the Teaching of the Twelve A postles 
@) ’ we have the form of thanksgiving over 
the Cup and the Loaf, which are interesting as shewing 
a primitive conception of the doctrine of the Eucharist. 
The thanksgiving concerning the Cup is given first: 
“We thank Thee, our Father, for the holy vine of David 
Thy servant, which Thou hast made known to us 
through Jesus Thy servant; to Thee be glory for ever.” 
The formulary over the Bread broken («Adcya) im- 
mediately follows: “We thank Thee, O Father, for 
the life and knowledge which Thou hast made known 
to us through Jesus Thy servant; to Thee be glory 
for ever. Just as this broken bread was scattered over 
the hills and having been gathered together became 
one, so may Thy Church be gathered together from 
the ends of the earth into Thy kingdom. For Thine 
is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for 
ever.’ 
Although Clement does not directly 
(¢) Gementof allude to this Sacrament, his genuine 
letter to the Corinthians has an important 
bearing on the subject from the frequent use of Jewish 
sacrificial terms.4. The liturgical form of a newly re- 
covered portion of the letter led Bishop Lightfoot to 
infer that it formed part of a prayer used by Clement 
in the Roman church.° 


1. 1 Cor. xi. 17—22. 
2. 1 Cor. xi. 27—30. 

Ch. ix., Hitchcock and Brown’s Trans]. It should however be 
noted that the rite is here incomplete; the prophets may give thanks ‘as 
they please’: it is called ‘a sacrifice’, but there is no mention of conse- 
crated elements, Zxcyclopaedia Bibl., art. ‘ Eucharist’. 

4. Hebert, Zhe Lora’s Supper: Uninspired Teaching, vol. 1., p. 17. 
mwpoopopa...émrirehetobat, HD. to Cor., Cc. 40, 41. 

5. Bp. Lightfoot (Sz. Clement of Rome, Appendix, p wi6ey remarks 
on the use of the word éxrevjs.  éxrevys is a part of the a ritual, 


CH. Xx.] A PRIMITIVE SERVICE. 235 


; Justin Martyr in his Apology gives a 
’ full description of the celebration of a 
Christian Eucharist.1 He says that after a baptism it 
was the custom to offer prayers for the newly enlightened 
convert (rod dwricGévros), and for the brethren to salute 
one another with a kiss of peace. Bread, water and 
Wine (7oT7ptov bdaTos Kal Kpduatos) were then brought 
to the presiding minister (0 mpoeotws), who gave praise 
and glory to God through the name of the Son and the 
Spirit, and a thanksgiving (evyapiotia) for men having 
been thought worthy to receive these things from Him. 
During the thanksgiving the people kept silence, saying 
only the Amen. The deacons distributed the Elements 
and carried them to the houses of those who were absent. 
This Service also took place every Sunday, because on 
that day our Lord rose from the dead. Offerings were 
made for the benefit of the fatherless, the widows, the 
sick, strangers, and prisoners.? 


(@) Justin Martyr 


son In the treatise De Corona Mailitis 
(@) Tertullian} Tertullian informs us that celebrations 
took place at night, and also just before dawn, and that 
great reverence was shewn to the consecrated Elements. 
The Christians in his days were very careful to let no 
fragment of the bread or drop of the wine fall to the 
ground. He also speaks of oblations for the dead and in 
commemoration of the martyrs.® 


I. Justin Martyr, Apology, 1., cc. 65—67. 


2. Mr. Hammond (Liturgies, Eastern and Western) enumerates nine 
points in this account, with all of which zz thezr order the Clementine 
Liturgy exactly corresponds: (1) Lections from the Old and New Testa- 
ments, (2) Sermons, (3) Prayers for estates of men (said by all), (4) The 
Kiss of Peace, (5) Oblation of the Elements, (6) Very long (émi modv) 
Thanksgiving, (7) Consecration with words of Institution, (8) Intercession 
said by the celebrant and all the people, (9) Communion. 


3. De Corona Militts, c. iii. : ‘* Eucharistiae sacramentum in tempore 
victus, et omnibus mandatum a domino, etiam antelucanis coetibus, nec de 
aliorum manibus quam de presidentium sumimus. Oblationes pro defunctis, 
pro natalitiis, annua die facimus...... Calicis aut panis etiam nostri aliquid 
decuti in terram anxie patimur.” In addition to this, Tertullian gives the 
following particulars regarding the Eucharist: (1) It was frequent, (2) Re- 
ceived into the hands, (3) Reserved and carried home, (4) Received daily 
at home. 


236 THE CLEMENTINE LITURGY. (cH. x. 


(f) The Shortly after the middle of the third 
(Apostolical century the Apostolical Constitutions de- 
onan" scribes the order of a Christian service, 
and also gives the text of a liturgy generally known as 
the Clementine. The latter is of great length, but well 
worthy of attention as illustrating the worship of the 
Church in days of persecution. ‘The laity are ordered to 
take their seats in silence, the men on one side and 
the women on the other. The reader standing in the 
midst is to read from the Old Testament, and from 
Epistles or Acts, and afterwards a deacon or priest is to 
read the Gospel. When this is finished the door-keepers 
(zvAwpol) are directed to keep the entrance of the men, 
and the deaconesses that of the women. Thus far the 
Missa Catechumenorum has been celebrated; now begins 
the Mass of the Faithful. The Catechumens and penitents 
are to go out. The remaining worshippers are to arise 
and pray, turning to the east. Some of the deacons are 
now to bring the consecrated Elements, and the others to 
attend to the people and maintain silence. The next 
act is the kiss of peace, after which the deacon is directed 
to pray for the whole Church and the whole world, for 
the presbyters, the Bishop, and the Emperor. After this 
the Bishop (who is here called the High Priest) blesses 
the people in the words used by the Priests in blessing 


Israel. He then prays, saying: “O Lord, save Thy 


people, and bless Thine inheritance whom Thou hast 
purchased with the precious blood of Thy Christ, and 
hast called them a royal priesthood and an holy nation.” 
This is followed by the consecration of the Elements and 
by all present making their communion in both kinds.} 
From the earliest times the Church 
exercised the right of excluding from her 
assemblies and from all intercourse with believers those 
who transgressed her laws. The principle of all ecclesias- 
tical punishment was degradation. ‘Thus the offending 
cleric lost his privileges and was ranked among the 


Discipline. 


1. Const. Apost., lib. 1., c. 57, and lib. vill. pass. For the Clemen- 
tine Liturgy, see Brightman, Liturgies Eastern and Western (Eastern), 
pp: 3—30. The children received the Communion before the rest of the 
laity, Const. Apost., VIII. 13. 


= 
- agi ker 


cH. x.) PRINCIPLES OF CHURCH DISCIPLINE, 237 


laity, the layman became a catechumen, the catechumen 
was punished by his baptism being deferred. For very 
serious offences the Church inflicted the terrible punish- 
ment of total excommunication. Idolatry and the 
grosser sins of impurity in the case of baptized persons 
were often considered as unpardonable in this world. 
We have noticed the harsh views of Tertullian on these 
points. The stern Spanish council of Elvira punishes 
such offences with perpetual excommunication: “ Nec in 
finem dandam esse communionem.” Catechumens were 
far more leniently treated than baptized Christians, 
postponement of baptism being the heaviest sentence 
inflicted upon them, It will be noticed that the punish- 
ments of the early Church were purely spiritual. The 
offender was excluded from the Christian Society—that 
was all. Yet so terrible did it appear to a Christian, 
that we read of men submitting to a penance of ten 
or twenty years in order to obtain re-admittance to the 
Church. ‘Tertullian eloquently describes this penance 
to consist of confession of sin, abstinence from all 
pleasure, and constant prayer and fasting; he says that 
the penitent ought to fall to the earth and implore 
the presbyters, to spend hours on his knees before God’s 
altars, and to implore the brethren to pray for him.* No 
greater testimony can be given to shew the power of 
Christian influence over the minds of the men who 
entered the Church in the days of persecution, than 
the merciful severity of ecclesiastical discipline and 
the sorrow of those who were deprived of Christian 
privileges. 
The age in which the Church won 
onaty of, her place in the world was infamous for 
, its profligacy. The virtues of ancient 
Greece and Rome had been born of patriotism and 
nourished by simplicity of life. The domination of 
Rome made patriotism illegal, and luxury had displaced 
simplicity. The most significant sign of the degeneracy 
of the age was the contempt which had fallen upon the 
institution of marriage. Family life became almost 
impossible in a corrupt society in which divorce was 


1. De Poenitentia, c 9. 


238 SECOND MARRIAGES. . _ [cH. x. 


facilitated by the law and employed on the most 
frivolous pretexts. It was the Church’s mission to 
restore the home to the world. Our Lord’s precepts 
on the subject of the indissoluble character of the 
marriage tie were loyally followed by the Church of 
the second and third centuries, and an extreme party in 
the Church considered second marriage unworthy of a 
Christian, the Montanists going so far as to regard it as 
an actual sin. In thus insisting upon the sanctity of 
marriage, Christianity gave to woman a new dignity; 
the union of Christians was regarded as existing for the 


purpose of mutual help and encouragement in spiritual 


as well as temporal matters, and mixed marriages 
between Christians and heathens were strongly depre- 
cated.!. With this lofty ideal of Christian marriage 
there was a corresponding care of purity of life. The 
theatre was sternly interdicted, both on account of the 
cruelty of the gladiatorial games and also of the ap- 
palling indecency of the heathen spectacles. Simplicity 
and modesty of attire were very strongly inculcated, 
and everything was done to draw a sharp line dividing 
the purity of the Church from the laxity of heathen life 
and custom. 

Slavery was an integral part of 
ancient society, and though incompatible 
with the doctrines of the Gospel it could 
not be destroyed till the majority of civilised mankind 
under Christian influence condemned it as an insult to 
humanity. The early believers condemned idolatry, 
impurity, and the cruelty of the arena, with unflinching 
courage; but they shewed prudence in not attacking 
an institution which seemed a necessary part of the 
constitution of society. To the primitive Christian, 
whose hopes were centred in Christ, the loss of liberty 
did not appear so terrible as it does to ourselves ; 
indeed St. Paul’s exhortation to slaves has ever been 


Christianity and 
Slavery. 


Yr. Tertullian, Ad Uxorem, ul. §. In another place he interprets 
St. Paul’s words, ‘cui vult nubat tantum in Domino,” I Cor. vii. 39, asa 
prohibition of marriage with a heathen. (Contra Marcionem, v. 97.) See 
Pillet, Perpétue, p. 91. St. Cyprian in his treatise De Laps¢s says, *‘Jungere 
cum infidelibus vinculum matrimonii, prostituere gentilibus membra 
Christi.” 


* 
a ae ee ee 


CH. x.] CHRISTIANITY AND THE CATACOMBS. 239 


interpreted to mean that a slave would do well to refuse 
liberty even if the chance of freedom should present itself. 
But, even though the early Church did nothing to 
emancipate the slave, she performed an incalculable 
service to liberty by raising his condition. St. Paul’s 
short letter to Philemon, containing the words ‘‘ No 
more a slave, but a brother’’,? sounded the death knell of 
the worst evils of slavery. In the Primitive Church 
the baptized slave was the equal of the freeman; he 
might even be called upon to rule, and none would 
think it shame to obey. If he confessed Christ through 
suffering, the free-born Christian considered it a privilege 
to minister to his wants: if he obtained the martyr’s 
crown, the members of the Church vied with one 
another in doing him honour.’ 

The Catacombs are to early Chris- 
tianity what Herculaneum and Pompeii 
are to Pagan antiquity. They reveal the inner life of 
the Christian community at Rome during the first 
three centuries of our era. Throughout the middle 
ages the Catacombs, with one exception, were entirely 
unknown, and remained undiscovered till 1578. It is 
impossible to doubt that they contain genuine records 
of the first days of the Church. These cemeteries give 
a striking picture of the effects of the influence of the 
Faith on the first believers. Social distinctions are 
completely effaced in the tombs of the early Christians, 
only two of the inscriptions making any allusion to 
the condition of a slave or free man. Labour is 
honoured (an important fact in an age when manual 
work was the duty of a slave), craftsmen at their work 
being represented in the frescoes which adorn the tombs. 
Family affection is a very notable feature in many 
of the inscriptions. The favourite Christian symbols 
are—Christ depicted as the Good Shepherd, the Anchor, 


The Catacombs. 


1. 1 Cor. vii. 21, GAN’ ef kal Stvacat édeVOepos yerécOat paGdrov 
Xpiicat. 
2. Philemon, 16. 
For the opinions of Lactantius, Clement of Alexandria and 
Origen, respecting slavery, see Pressensé, Christian Life and Practice in 
the Early Church, p. 436, Eng. Trans. 


240 DANGERS OF CREDULITY. [cH x. 


and the Fish, the Greek word ius forming the initials 
of ’Incots Xpictos Ocod Lids SarTnHp.1 
; Martyrdom was the means by which 
Dae ‘© the Church won her most conspicuous 
triumphs, and was honoured accordingly. 
The more ardent spirits among the brethren longed 
earnestly to obtain the martyr’s crown. To have con- 
fessed Christ in persecution was to have won a glory 
second only to that attained by those who died for 
the Faith. The prison doors were besieged by crowds 
of believers, anxious to pay their respects to those 
who were suffering for conscience sake. The graves 
of the martyrs were frequented by pious Christians, 
and the day on which they suffered was celebrated as 
the birth-day of their glory. Imprisoned confessors 
issued commands to the churches, which were regarded 
almost as inspired utterances. Martyrology was the 
most popular literature in the early Church. Although 
the great honour paid to martyrdom was not unattended 
by serious evils,? it unquestionably proved a great 
support to those who were called upon to act as the 
champions of the Faith in the days of persecution. 


os It must not be supposed that the early 

culy Christians, Christians were absolutely free from the 
superstitions of their age. ‘The belief 

in daemons was almost universally accepted, and much 
of the hatred of idolatry is attributable to the fact that 
Christians considered a false god to be not an unreality, 
but a malignant spirit. The exorcists were a recognised 
order in the Church, and the energumens, or possessed 
persons, had a place among the penitents. Many Chris- 
tians were believed to have the power of working 


1. De Pressensé, Christian Life and Practice tn the Early Church. 
A convenient work on the subject of the Catacombs is Subterranean Rome, 
an epitome of De Rossi’s discoveries, by J. Spencer Northcote and 
W. R. Brownton. 


2. I allude to the belief that martyrdom would atone for sin, the rash 
way in which fanatics sought death by insulting the magistrates or 
breaking idols, the disorders caused to the Church in St. Cyprian’s time 
by pardons being granted in such rash profusion by the confessors to ex- 
communicated offenders, and the impostures described by Lucian in his 
Pervegrinus Proteus. 


cH. X.] SUPERNATURAL TERRORS. 241 


miracles; visions were by no means unfrequent.: The 
Eucharist was regarded with ever-increasing awe, and 
as the primitive simplicity of the original rite dis- 
appeared, its power to injure the unworthy was con- 
sidered fully as great as the benefit it conferred upon the 
worthy recipient.? It was the same with Baptism— 


1. Neander (Church History, vol. 1., p. 103) gives many instances of 
the universal belief of the early Christians that they were able to exercise 
supernatural powers. Justin Martyr (AZo/. 1.) says that the name of 
Christ expels demons, and indeed this is one of the favourite arguments 
with the Apologists, Tertullian, Minucius Felix, etc. It is worth observing 
how Tertullian in his treatise On Baptism shews that waters are naturally 
the abode of evil spirits: ‘sine ullo sacramento immundi spiritus aquis 
incumbunt.” (c. 5.) Irenaeus, in his second book, Against Heresies, 
speaks of gifts of healing, and the dead being raised by Christians. 
Tertullian relates that many came to the true God by means of visions, 
De Anima, 24. Origen, Hom. in Joann., xx., c. 28: ov6é yap Sivarac 
tuprav dpbarpmods avoitat ) Taira Ta onuela troety, & Kal dvayéyparra, av 
kal txvn Kat relupara év rats éxxrAnolas dvduare “Inood wéxpe viv ylveras. 
The question as to when miracles ceased in the Church is a very difficult one. 
We are compelled to accept one of two alternatives: either that miraculous 
powers have never been withdrawn, or that they lasted only so long as the 
charismata of the Apostolic age. See Dr. Edwin Abbott’s Phzlomythus. 
From what I have read and heard I believe that the most striking analogies 
with the Early Church are to be found in the record of mission work in 
China. The following passage from Zhe Lzfe of Pastor Hsz (11.) might be 
a description of a similar event in the 2nd century :—‘‘ Without hesitation 
he went to his distressed wife, and laying his hands upon her, in the name 
of Jesus, commanded the evil spirits to depart and torment her no more, 
Then and there the change was wrought. To the atonishment of all 
except her husband, Mrs. Hsi was immediately delivered. Weak as she 
was, she realised that the trouble was conquered. And very soon the 
neighbourhood realised it too. For the completeness of the cure was 
proved by after events. Mrs. Hsi never again suffered in this way. And 
so profoundly was she impressed, that she forthwith declared herself a 
Christian and one with her husband in his life-work. The effect upon the 
villagers was startling. Familiar as they were with cases of alleged demon- 
possession more or less terrible in character, the people had never seen or 
heard of a cure, and never expected to. What could one do against 
malicious spirits? Yet here, before their eyes, was proof of a power 
mightier than the strong manarmed. It seemed little less than a miracle. 
‘Who can this Jesus be?’ was the question of many hearts. ‘No wonder 
they would have us, too, believe and worship.’ Some did follow Mrs. Hsi’s 
example, and turn to the Lord. Regular Sunday services were established, 
and idolatry in many homes began to relax its hitherto unquestioned sway.” 

2. A good example of the terror with which this Sacrament was 
regarded is found in the case of a man who had been baptized by heretics, 
mentioned by Dionysius of Alexandria, Euseb., H. 2. vil. 9. For 
miracles in connexion with the Eucharist see Euseb., A. 2. vi. 44, and 
Cyprian De Lapsis 25 sq. The doctrine of a material and corporeal change 
of the Elements belongs to a far later period. 

Q 


242 THE GERMS OF FUTURE ERROR. (CH, X. 


the fear of losing the gifts conferred by this Sacrament 
led men to postpone being baptized till they were 
in extyemis, in order to enter Heaven pure from sin. 
Miracles were not of unfrequent occurrence, and are 
gravely related as natural events by ecclesiastical 
writers. The long-cherished belief that Nero would 
return as Antichrist was a sign of the credulity of those 
who first professed the Faith. By the end of the fourth 
century it was held that those who persecuted the 
Church were sure to die miserably—a belief which events 
tended to confirm.’ 

The presence of a certain amount of credulity was 
not unnatural. Persecuted enthusiasts cannot be ex- 
pected to exercise the calm judgment of cold-hearted 
philosophers, and their very zeal tends to stimulate 
credulity. In the first days of the Church the super- 
stitions of the Christians were comparatively few and 
harmless, and they are only worthy of notice because 
they contain the germs of later and more pernicious 
corruptions of the purity of the Gospel. 


r. Milman, Aéstory of Chréstianzty, vol. 111., p. 316. Constantine 
is of course the most famous example of the postponement of baptism. 

2. Milman, zdzd., vol. I1., pp. 123—4, note. Kurtz, Church History, 
vol. I., p. 76. 


3. This is the whole point of Lactantius’ work, De Mortzbus Perse- 


cutorum, in which the worst spirit of the Early Church appears, 


ey 


CHAPTER XI, 


|THE CHURCHES OF ROME, CARTHAGE, AND 
ALEXANDRIA. 


Tue object of the present chapter is to give in a 
concise form an account of the three important churches 
of Rome, Carthage and Alexandria, down to the time 
of the publication of the edict of Milan.. Each of these 
cities represents different effects of the Faith among 
people of various temperaments and dispositions, and 
we may trace many features of modern belief and 
doctrine to the influence of ideas fostered in these great 
centres of primitive Christianity. The outward grandeur 
of the Roman Church has remained. On the other hand 
Alexandria has ceased to be a power in Christendom ; 
and the great African Church, of which Carthage was 
the head, has entirely disappeared. Yet every time we 
repeat the so-called creed of Nicaea, we acknowledge 
a debt to the great theological school of Alexandria ; 
and no question in divinity can be approached without 
taking into account the theology of Augustine, the 
product and flower of the Christianity of Africa. It is 
chiefly to Rome that we owe the ideal of the catholicity 
of the Faith. The Roman bishops, at any rate after the 
first half of the second century, must have been men 
of wide and comprehensive views shewing strong 
sympathy with the most distant churches. Although 
it is true that the bishops of Rome _ occasionally 
displayed a desire to exert undue authority over foreign 
Christian communities, it must be admitted that the 
high position accorded to the Roman Church was 
due to something more than to self-assertion or to the 


Q2 


244 ST. PETER AND ST. PAUL AT ROME. [cuH. x1 


importance of the city. The virtues of the Roman 
Christians must be taken into account in every attempt 
to explain their wide-spread influence in the first 
centuries of our era. 

The Epistle to the Romans contains 
the most elaborate statement of doctrine 
put forth by St. Paul, and is a proof that 
the Apostle of the Gentiles was fully aware of the 
paramount importance of Rome as a Christian centre. 
It has been already remarked that St. Paul in his 
missionary journeys invariably selected (as the scenes 
of his most arduous labours) such cities as Corinth and 
Ephesus, through which a vast concourse of strangers 
was continually passing. One of the great objects of 
his life was to preach the Gospel in Rome, and he 
may possibly have had this in view when he appealed 
to Caesar. In his Epistle to the Philippians, written 
not long after his arrival, St. Paul describes the success 
of his preaching in Rome with evident satisfaction.! 
Though his labours must have been somewhat restricted 
by the circumstances of his imprisonment, he appears 
to have won converts among the praetorian guard and 
the slaves attached to Nero’s familia. Having once 
obtained a footing in the imperial palace, the new 
religion advanced so rapidly that by the close of the 
first century it began to number among its adherents. 
even the near relatives of the emperors. | 

It is characteristic of the Roman 

do fida ater ag church, that although it boasted of the 
Apostles Peter and Paul as its founders,? 

the name of the latter is now but rarely connected with 


St. Paul and the 
Roman Church. 


1. For St. Paul’s desire to visit Rome, see Acts xix. 21, xxili. IT, 
Rom. i. 15. For his preaching at Rome, Phil. i. 12 foll. For the date of 
the Philippian Epistle, Lightfoot, PAz/ppians, p. 41. 

2. Allusion to the work of the two Apostles is made by Clement of 
Rome, Z., c. 5, and implied in Ignatius ad Rom. iv. The Muratorian 
Fragment connects the ‘‘ passio Petri” with St. Paul’s journey to Spain. 
Hippolytus speaks of the contest between Simon Magus and the Ajosties. 
In the catacomb of St. Priscilla (also the burial place of Pudens and his. 
daughter) there is a fresco figure inscribed ‘‘ Paulus Pastor Apostolus”. 
Peter and Paul are constantly represented together in medallions, &c. 
(generally with Christ in the centre) in the catacombs. Eusebius (#. Z. 
vi1. 18) had probably seen some of these portraits. © 


cH.xL] ST. PETER’S VISIT TO ROME. 245 


it. It will appear in the course of our history that 
the Roman Christians aimed at a policy of moderation, 
especially in matters of doctrine. In St. Paul we have 
an enthusiastic missionary, a pronounced theologian, 
the founder of a school; in St. Peter, a typical Christian 
ruler, the shepherd of God’s people,’ a man desirous of 
reconciling conflicting tendencies. 
It was related at a comparatively early 
Was St Feter date that St. Peter had been bishop of 
Rome for twenty-five years. The belief 
has been traced by some to the age of Hippolytus 
(A.D. 200),? and it certainly existed in the fourth century. 
The Apostle’s visit to the imperial city has been 
precariously connected with his disappearance from 
the foreground of St. Luke’s narrative. (Acts xii. 17.) 
St. Peter, released from the prison at Jerusalem, sends 
a message to “ James and the brethren ”’, and “ departing 
to another place” passes from his prominent position 
on the page of the historian to reappear on the single 
occasion of the council. (Acts xv.) But both his presence 
at Jerusalem on this occasion and his absence from the 
account of St. Paul’s own visit to Rome (Acts xxviii.) 
argue against this bold inference. Indeed it is scarcely 
possible that St. Peter could have visited Rome before 
A.D. 58. St. Paul, who made it his aim not to build 
on the foundations of other Apostles, addresses in that 
year the Christian community at Rome. Not only is 
there no mention of Peter in the crowded page of 
salutations (Rom. xvi.), but the attitude of the writer 
is plainly that of the recognised spiritual overseer, who, 
though he has yet to visit Rome in person, is the 
fountain head of those missionary channels which had 
brought the Gospel to the Imperial centre. Nor does 
St. Paul speak of St. Peter in the epistles written during 
his Roman captivity ; and from this it seems improbable 


1. St. John xxi. 16. oluawve ra mpdBarid pov. It is noteworthy 
that St. Peter repeats his Master’s words in his advice to the elders, I. St. Pet. 
Vv. 2: woiudvare 7d év byuiv rolunov Tov Oeod~ 

2. See Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, Part I., vol. 1., p. 283. The 
Chronicon of Eusebius, according to Jerome, gives St. Peter a twenty- 
five years episcopate, but the Armenian version makes it only twenty years. 
Lightfoot, of. czt., p. 206. 


246 FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. PETER. (CH. XI. 


that the latter Apostle had visited Rome before the 
year A.D. 63.’ Patristic testimony 1s however unanimous 
in saying that St. Peter did at some time visit Rome,” 
and it is very possible that he wrote his First Epistle 
from that city. This beautiful letter to the churches 
of Asia breathes the purest spirit of the Christian Faith. 
Written to console the persecuted believers in the East, 
it is full of the tenderest sympathy and the most 
practical counsels. Though, as in the case of the Epistle 
to the Romans, the relationship of writer and readers 
is not accounted for by history, the tone throughout 
this Epistle is that of a father addressing his children. 
The pathos of the letter is enhanced by the fact that 
the Apostle speaks to the afflicted faithful in the 
character of an eye-witness of the sufferings of Christ 
(uwaptus TaV TOD XpioTod Tafynpatwv). In accordance 
with Hebraistic usage we may explain 7 év BaBvAov 
ouvexvexTyH as the congregation chosen by God from the 
midst of the centre of persecution, the corrupt and 
sinful Babylon of Rome in the days of Nero. The 
letter may thus be regarded as written by St. Peter 
from the Imperial city, probably not long before his 
own well-attested martyrdom there, viz. A.D. 68. 
Irenaeus says that St. Peter and 
ine FAN AS St. Paul founded the church of Rome 


and made Linus bishop, but it can neither 


be proved from this Father nor from any of his 
predecessors that the first-named Apostle was actually 
bishop of the city. Linus was followed by Anencletus ; 
after him came Clement, the third from the Apostles. 
Reference has already been made to the Neronian 
persecution. Much additional information about the 


1. Lightfoot, of. czt., vol. 11., p. 490, ‘ The Roman Visit of St. Peter.’ 

2. For patristic testimonies see Bp. Lightfoot, of, cz¢., who considers 
that év BaBuvdiwu (1. Pet. v. 13) refers unquestionably to Rome. The men- 
tion of Mark in this passage is a strong argument in favour of this view; for 
Papias, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen, all connect the 
writing of St. Mark’s Gospel with the preaching of St. Peter at Kome. 
Dean Alford, in his Prolegomena to I. St. Peter, chs. iii. and iv., thinks that 
the Assyrian Babylon is meant. See also Bp. Chase in his article on 
I, Peter, in Hastings’ Dict. B2b.; Bigg, Peter and Fude, p. 86; Sanday and 
Headlam, Romans, p. xxviii. f. : 

3. Iren., Haeres., 111. iii. 3. Bishop Lightfoot unfortunately left an 
Appendix to his Apostolic Fathers, ‘St. Peter at Rome,’ uncompleted. 


mee 


a a ae 


cH.x1.]. THE FLAVIAN EMPERORS. 247 


condition of the Roman church in the time of the 
second Imperial persecutor Domitian has been supplied 
by De Rossi’s important discoveries in the catacombs 
of Rome.} 
It had long been surmised that the 
fans tae itis Christians had gained a footing not only 
Christians, 19 the household but in the family of the 
Flavian emperors; De Rossi’s explora- 
tions have placed this conjecture on a substantial 
historical basis, the connexion of Flavia Domitilla 
with the Church being attested by several inscriptions. 
Vespasian, the first of the Flavian emperors, belonged 
not to the ancient Roman nobility, but to the Italian 
bourgeoisie, and both he and his family were con- 
spicuously devoid of aristocratic prejudices, They all 
seem to have been singularly attracted by the beliefs 
of the East, and to have surrounded themselves with 
Orientals, and even Jews. Herod Agrippa II. was on 
good terms with the Flavii, and his sister Berenice’s 
mature charms produced a great impression on Titus.? 
The Jewish historian Josephus also took the name 
of Flavius in honour of his imperial patrons, and 
enjoyed their favour at Rome. 

In the course of this work allusion has been made 
to the supposition that both Flavius Clemens and his 
wife Flavia Domitilla became Christians. ‘‘ Any shadow 
of doubt’’ (to quote Bishop Lightfoot’s words) “ which 
might have rested on the Christianity of Clemens and 
Domitilla, after the perusal of the historical notices, 
has been altogether removed (at least as regards the 
wife) by the antiquarian discoveries of recent years.” 
One of the earliest burial places of the Roman Christians 
was the Coemeterium Domitillae. It has now been 
identified by De Rossi with the catacombs of the Tor 
Marancia on the Ardeatine Way; and the inscriptions 
discovered in it shew that it belonged to that Ilavia 
Domitilla® who was banished by Domitian on the charge 


1. Our authority here is Bishop Lightfoot’s posthumous edition of the 
first part of his Apostolic Fathers. 
2. Suetonius, 7z¢tus 7. 
. It is uncertain whether there were two ladies of this name 
who professed Christianity or only one. From the genealogical table 


248 FLAVIA DOMITILLA. POMPONIA.  {cH. x1. 


of ‘atheism’ so often made against Christians. One 
monument in this catacomb was erected (according to 
its legend) ex indulgentia Flaviae Domitillae, and another 
by Tatia, the nurse of the seven children of Vespasian 
and of his grand-daughter Flavia Domitilla.} 

The publicity of the buildings in connexion with 
this cemetery shews also that they were erected by some 
person of influence, and as De Rossi assigns to them 
as early a date as the first century, they may well 
have been erected just after Domitian’s death. 

But the Christians had made a convert 

Conversion of of high rank, even before the accession 
rh Sieh a of the Flavian dynasty, in Pomponia 
Graecina, who, by.a strange coincidence, 

was the wife of Aulus Plautius, Vespasian’s old com- 


mander in Britain. This noble lady’s friend, Julia 


the daughter of Drusus, was executed A.D. 43, Owing 
to the plots of the infamous Messalina. ‘The loss of 
one so intimate cast a gloom over the life of Pomponia, 
who sought consolation in religion. In A.p. 57 she 
was accused of practising foreign superstition, and 
tried by her husband, according to the ancient custom 


below it will be seen that there were several Flavia Domitillas.. This 
catacomb in the fourth century was known by the names of Petronilla, and 
Nereus and Achilleus. 


I. Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, Part I., vol. 1., pp. 35—-39. The 


relationship of Clemens and Domitilla to the emperors Vespasian, Titus, 
and Domitian may be seen in the following table :— 
T. Fl. Sabinus 
me. Vespasia Pollia 


/ 
T. Fl. Sabinus, T. Fl. Vespasianus (Imp.) 
Praefectus Urbis m. Flavia Domitilla (a) 


| 
T.Fl. Clemens m. Fl. Domitilla (c) 


(Titus) Imp. 79-81. Imp.81-96, 
: 
asister* T. Fl. Sabinus Julia Augusta 


Vespasian Domitian 
Flavia Domitilla (d)? 


* Euseb., H. A. ut 18, 


| | 
Flavia Domitilla (6) T. Fl.Vespasianus Domitian — 


be 
ti 


CH. XI.] CLEMENT’S EPISTLE. 249 


of the Romans, in a family court;! she was pro- 
nounced innocent, and passed the rest of her life 
in profound melancholy. She survived her friend 
Julia by forty years, and consequently died about the 
year A.D. 83. Such is the account of Tacitus, and it 
has been conjectured that what seemed the grief of 
Pomponia and her mournful attire was in reality due 
to her profession of the Christian Faith? These 
surmises have been greatly strengthened by the dis- 
covery of the inscriptions in the so-called Crypt of 
Lucina, in memory of persons belonging to the 
Pomponian Gens. We even find the name Pomponius 
Graecinus, but only in a third-century inscription, and 
De Rossi has conjectured that Pomponia at her baptism 
took the name of Lucina, and that the cemetery of 
the Christians was called after her. 

It would appear then that Christianity 
ae ee since the death of Nero had made extra- 
Corinthians’ Ordinary progress at Rome. The patron- 

A.D. 96. age of the wealthy enabled the Church 

to obtain a tolerably firm footing in the 

city ; and the Christians, by availing themselves of the 
laws affecting funeral guilds, were enabled to give a 
seemly burial to their dead. Suddenly, almost without 
warning, towards the close of the reign of Domitian all 
was changed. Flavius Clemens was executed, and Flavia 
Domitilla banished. It was shortly after these troubles 
that Clement wrote anonymously in the name of the 
Roman church to the Corinthian Christians to allay their 
dissensions. He describes the persecutions, which the 
church of Rome had just been enduring, as being 
sudden and repeated (ai@vidious kal érrandArjdous ryevouevas). 
The tone of the letter reminds us of St. Peter; its 
language, of St. Paul and the Epistle to the Hebrews. 
Clement is evidently a Jew thoroughly acquainted with 
the Septuagint. He is mindful of the glories and 
privileges of Israel, and impressed no doubt by the 
terrible ruin which had so recently fallen upon his 


I. Tacitus, Anum. x11I. 32. ‘‘ Superstitionis externae rea.” 
2. See Alford, Greek Zest., Prolegomenato 11. Tim. ‘ Excursus on 
‘Pudens and Claudia.’ 


250 IGNATIUS WRITES TO THE ROMANS. [cH, x1. 


nation.! He regards the Church as a continuation of 
ancient Israel, the Bishops and Deacons as taking a place 
analogous to that of the Priests and Levites of the Old 
Covenant. But he isno Judaizing controversialist. Peter 
and Paul are held in equal honour by him, both being 
held up as ensamples to posterity. Nor has he any 
sympathy with those Jews or Christians who regarded the 
Roman empire as the embodiment of evil. He agrees 
with the two great Apostles that the powers which be are 
ordained of God, and that submission to human authority 
is a duty.2 Clement desires concord and uniformity 
above all things. His ideal is order in the Church, 
as it is seen both in nature and in the Roman empire. 
The watchword of the whole epistle is the necessity 
of obedience. The document is a remarkable monu- 
ment of the practical wisdom of the church of Rome, 
of its profound policy, and of its spirit of govern- 
ment.® 


The Letter of About fourteen years after the despatch 
Ignatius tothe of the Epistle of Clement to Corinth, the 
Pieces church of Rome received a letter from 


Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, when he was 
on his way to suffer martyrdom in the Imperial city. 
The letter is interesting as shewing the position of the 
church of Rome in the eyes of the Christians of the East. 
Ignatius in his salutation exhausts every epithet of 
honour in describing the Roman church. It is “beloved 
and enlightened through the will of Him who willed 
all things that are, by faith and love through Jesus 
Christ our God; even she that hath the presidency in 
the country of the region of the Romans, being worthy 
of God, worthy of honour, worthy of felicitation, worthy 
of praise, worthy of success, worthy in purity, and having 
the presidency of love, walking i in the law of Christ and 


1. Lightfoot, 4post. Fathers, Part I., vol. 1., p. 351: “ «Jealousy and 
strife overthrew great cities and rooted out great nations.’ In this last 
sentence some have seen special reference to the Jewish war and the 
destruction of Jerusalem A.D. 70. Bearing in mind the language in which 
Josephus on the one hand and Hegesippus on the other describe the causes 
of the Jewish war, we cannot consider this allusion altogether fanciful.” 

2. Rom. xiii.1. 1. St. Peter ii. 13, Lightfoot, of. cz¢., p. 384. 

3. Renan, Zes Evangiles, ch. xv. Eusebius (Z@. £&. Il. 16) speaks in 
highest praise of Clement’s letter, calling it weydAn re kal Oavuacia. 


CH. x1} POLYCARP. PASCHAL CONTROVERSY. 251 


bearing the Father’s name.”! The Martyr evidently 
regards the Roman church as a very powerful and 
influential body, able, if it makes an effort, to purchase 
or procure his pardon from the authorities, and he 
entreats the Christians at Rome not to rob him of the 
prize of martyrdom. We have noticed how recent 
discoveries confirm the opinion that the patronage of 
persons of high station was now accorded to the Church 
in Rome. Ignatius doubtless was not over-estimating 
the influence of the Christian community. 
Polycarp visited Rome shortly before 
'Polyearpin his martyrdom, during the pontificate 
ome. : 
A.D. 164. of Anicetus. He came to settle a dispute 
between the Roman and Asiatic churches 
as to whether the festival of Easter should be held 
invariably on a Sunday, or whether the Christian 
Passover, like the Jewish, should be always celebrated 
on the fourteenth day irrespective of the day of the 
week. The latter custom prevailed in Asia Minor, on (it 
was alleged) the authority of St.John. Anicetus allowed 
the venerable disciple of the Apostle to preside at the 
Eucharist—a most remarkable honour, as the bishop of 
each church invariably celebrated the sacred mysteries 
himself.? 
Victor and the The conciliatory action of Anicetus al- 
Paschal layed the first symptoms of this controversy. 
At ton ons More characteristic of the later spirit of 
ry ’ the church of Rome is its attempt to in- 
timidate the other churches in relation to the same matter 
of discipline. Not many years later, the Roman bishop, 
Victor (A.D. 190—202), deemed it intolerable that the 
churches of Asia should thus differ from the practice of 
Rome in observing Easter. Victor actually threatened 
to excommunicate the Asiatics for refusing to abandon 
a custom which they alleged had been derived from 
St. John himself. But this high-handed conduct shocked 
the more generous Christian feeling of theage. Irenaeus, 


1. Ignatius, Ad Rom., c. i., Bp. Lightfoot’s trans. Hefele’s text 
ignores the comma after éo7w, in which case the sentence would run ‘*‘ Who 
willed all things that are in accordance with the love of Jesus Christ.” 

2. -Euseb., H. Z. v. 24; for so the words rapexwpnoev 6 ’Avixnros 
Ti evxapictiay Tr UWodvKdpay have been interpreted. 


252 : THE SHEPHERD OF HERMAS. (CH. XI. 


bishop of Lyons in Gaul, an Asiatic by birth and 
education, wrote to point out the unreasonableness of 
Victor’s conduct, and the Roman bishop had the wisdom 
to withdraw his threat of excommunication.’ 

Allusion has already been made to 
the presence of numerous Gnostic teachers 
at Rome. We may see in this another 
illustration of the early importance of the Roman 
church. It seems as though every new teacher desired 
to obtain a hearing in the Imperial city. The legend of 
St. Peter’s contest with Simon Magus in Rome is a 
typical embodiment of the struggle between orthodoxy 
and Gnosticism. The doctrines of Marcion and of the 
Valentinians had much influence among the inhabitants 
of Rome, and we are told that a lady Gnostic, Marcellina 
by name, attracted a number of pupils by her lectures 
on the system of Carpocrates. 

No student of Church history can 

The Stepherd ignore the fact that the religious pro- 
A.D.130%  ductions which have attained widest 
popularity have a footing independent of 

learning, orthodoxy, and canons of literary taste. How 
well even in the early ages the Roman church under- 
stood the need of providing a popular devotional 
literature, we may judge by the fact that the first 
Christian romance was produced by Hermas the brother © 
of Pope Pius. The work, the celebrated Shepherd, 
consists of a series of Visions represented as having been 
seen by the author. Hermas is introduced as a slave 
sold in youth to a lady named Rhoda, but afterwards 
appears as a prosperous tradesman, married to a Gentile 
wife, whose bitter tongue was the cause of great trouble 
to him, as was also his family of extravagant sons. 
In his youth Hermas had admired Rhoda, but had not 
seen her for many years. One day he saw her bathing 
in the Tiber,? and reflected how happy he would have 
been had he been blessed with such a wife. Neverthe- 


Gnosticism at 
Rome. 


1. It is not certain that Victor actually excommunicated the Asiatics. 
Jerome speaks of his desire to have them condemned. Eusebius (Z. Z. v. 
23) is not definite. Socrates (H. Z. v. 22) says that an excommunication 
was pronounced. 

2. This incident is less startling when one has read Cyprian De 
Habitu Virginum, ¢. 19. 


CH. X1.] MONTANISM CONDEMNED, 253 


less, Hermas is careful to add that he never betrayed his 
thoughts to her either by word or action. In the first 
vision seen by Hermas, the girl, who had evidently died, 
appeared to him and rebuked him because his love had 
not been altogether devoid of concupiscence. Soon, how- 
ever, an aged matron took her place, and told Hermas 
that all was not well with him because he had allowed 
his family to lead godless and irregular lives. This 
venerable lady, who represents the Church, revealed 
many things to Hermas, and was followed by an angel 
in the character of the Shepherd or Angel of Repentance, 
who henceforth acts as guide. Such is the epitome of the 
Shepherd of Hermas. ‘The fantastic Visions and Simili- 
tudes of which the book is composed enjoyed a wide 
popularity. Irenaeus quotes the book as Scripture, 
and Origen is of opinion that it is divinely inspired; 
and it is included along with Barnabas in the New 
Testament of the celebrated Codex Sinaiticus in the 
fourth century. The late Dean Stanley has not exagger- 
ated its influence when he speaks of it as the “ popular 
book of devotion, the Pilgrim’s Progress of the second 
century, which was spread far and wide from Italy even 
to Greece, Egypt, and Abyssinia.”? 
The Shepherd of Hermas is thought to 
Condemnation of have been the production of a member of 
Montenism bY the more austere party in the Roman 
(A.D. 190—202.) church. Even at this early date we are able 
to see that two views of church govern- 
ment had been adopted in Rome. There was a Catholic 
party, desirous of extending the limits of the Church 
and of deterring nobody from membership who would 
acknowledge official authority. We find the upholders 
of this view inclined to toleration in matters of opinion, 
and to lenity in respect of discipline. On the other 
hand, a Puritan party aimed at a smaller but more 
perfect church of unimpeachable orthodoxy, exercising 
unrelenting severity towards offenders. The contest was 
not unlike that between the Jesuits and the Jansenists in 


1. Fora good description of the contents of the Shepherd of Hermas, 
see Bunsen, Azppolytus and his Age, vol. 1., pp. 182—214. The work is 
divided into Visions, Commandments, and Similitudes, See also Dobschutz, 
Christian Life in the Primitive Church, ch. xviii. 


254 MONARCHIANISM, | [CH XI. 


the seventeenth century. On the one side there was a 
certain breadth of view and liberality of mind joined with 
some worldliness and a tendency toa laxer morality. On 
the other, deep spiritual insight and strong religious con- 
victions existed side by side with those shortcomings 
which make all forms of Puritanism sectarian and 
unamiable. The Montanists represented the latter 
school of thought. In the West they appear as stern 
enthusiasts, heroes in the days of persecution, bigots in 
time of peace. At first their love of martyrdom, their 
sensitive purity, and their austerity of life, made them 
very popular. Gradually it became evident to the heads 
of the Roman church that their ill-regulated zeal might 
prove a source of disorder in the Christian body, and 
the representations of the Asiatic Praxeas, who had seen 
the Montanists in the country of their origin, sufficed to 
induce Victor to pronounce them excommunicate. ‘The 
true scene of their mfluence in the West was, however, 
not Rome, but Africa. 

The fact that Victor listened to 
Praxeas, whose opinions were unorthodox, 
and that the orthodox Montanists were censured, was 
characteristic of the Roman policy. Freedom in matters 
of opinion was granted by the early popes, at the price 
of uniformity in practice. We have already shewn the 
weakness of the Roman bishops in their action towards 
those who held Monarchian opinions; none of them 
indeed seemed capable of grasping the true theological 
significance of the doctrinal tendencies of the age. 
Nevertheless this unscientific frame of mind had its 
merits. The very vacillations of Zephyrinus and 
Callistus in dealing with heresy reveal a definite line 
of policy. The Roman church desired breadth and 
comprehensiveness, and preferred conciliation to rigid 
definitions of dogma. It is not without significance 
that, down to the very eve of the outbreak of 
the Reformation, the church of Rome could claim 
the merit of having exercised great toleration in 
matters of religious speculation." The Eastern Church 


The Monarchians. 


1. Even Gregory VII., the great upholder of the Papal supremacy, 
shewed no rancour against Berengarius, who denied the popular doctrine 
of transubstantiation. See Milman, Latin Christianity, vol. Iv., p. 118. 


" , 


CH. XI.] CAREER OF CALLISTUS. 255 


still boasts of her orthodoxy, the Western of her 
catholicity. 


The disputes between the Catholic and 
Puritan parties in Rome culminated ina 
serious quarrel between Callistus, the suc- 
cessor of Zephyrinus, and Hippolytus, the greatest scholar 
of hischurch andage. Weare in possession of the views 
of the latter given in his Refutation of All the Heresies. 
According to Hippolytus, Callistus was a most dis- 
reputable prelate. In early life he had been the slave 
of Carpophorus, a pious and wealthy ornament of the 
church of Rome. He had induced many of the poorer 
members of the community to trust their money in a 
commercial enterprise which Carpophorus had placed 
in his hands. Like other business transactions conducted 
by men of piety with the money of the widow and 
orphan, Callistus’ bank failed. His patron, anxious to 
clear himself from all complicity, pursued Callistus as 
he was escaping from those whom he had defrauded. 
Callistus was just setting sail, when he saw Carpophorus 
gesticulating to the sailors, calling on them to deliver 
up the fugitive. He immediately jumped into the sea 
in hopes of being drowned, but was rescued and delivered 
to his master. As a punishment he was condemned to 
work in the pistvina. After a time Carpophorus, moved 
by the grief of the defrauded investors, liberated Callistus, 
who professed himself able to recover some of the cash. 
Instead of doing this, he tried to obtain the honour of 
martyrdom by disturbing a synagogue service. He was 
now accused before Fuscianus the praefect of the city ; 
and Carpophorus, more zealous for the honour of the 
church than mindful of the truth, declared that Callistus 
was not a Christian. The future pope was sentenced 
to work in the mines in Sardinia, and was thus occupied 
when the Christian confessors there were set free at 
the intercession of Marcia, the concubine of Commodus. 
Callistus managed to be included in the amnesty, and 
returned to Rome. We next find him in high favour 
with Zephyrinus, who gave him charge of the cemetery, 
a highly honourable position. Zephyrinus died in 
A.D. 217; and his place in the late pontiff’s good 


Hippolytus and 
Callistus. 


256 DID HIPPOLYTUS EXAGGERATE? _ [cu. x1. 


graces secured the election of Callistus to the Roman 
chair. Hippolytus’ indictment now details the ecclesi- 
astical offences of this Pope of damaging antecedents. 
Callistus is accused of favouring heresy, of decreeing 
that if a bishop sinned even unto death he should not 
be deposed, of allowing heretics to enter the Church 
without doing penance, of tolerating bishops and priests 
who had been guilty of second and third marriages, 
of having permitted free-born women to marry slaves, 
and finally of crowning his offences by allowing all 
sinners the chance of re-admission to the Church after 
doing penance. ‘This curious history, illustrative of 
many phases of the middle-class life of Rome in the 
third century, must be regarded as a bitterly partisan 
account of the rise of a successful and perhaps not very 
scrupulous man. It is evident that Callistus’ failings 
are exaggerated. It is indeed scarcely credible that so 
bad a man could have risen to the position of bishop 
of Rome at a time when the Church had departed but 
little from her primitive standard of morality. Against 
Hippolytus’ charges must be set the common experience, 
that those who would fain narrow the sphere of salvation 
see the faults of their opponents through powerful magni- 
fying glasses. The charity that thinketh no evil is 
seldom a companion of Puritanism. Callistus, when a 
slave, may have succumbed to temptation as alleged. 
But is it certain that the reproach of dishonesty does not 
more justly lie against his master, the good Carpophorus? 
In Rome, as elsewhere, masters who practised virtue 
themselves may not have been above allowing servants 
to make profit for them in questionable business transac- 
tions. At all events, Callistus seems to have led a life of 
irreproachable morality as a bishop! Even Hippolytus 
can only accuse him of ecclesiastical offences, generally 
in the direction of what that austere Father considers 
to be a mistaken lenity. We need hardly add that 
the indulgence accorded to penitents by Callistus would 
not be reprobated by any modern church. ‘The severer 


\ 


1. Tradition says Callistus was killed in a tumult and his body flung 
into a well in the Trastevere where he lived. He does not lie in his own 
catacomb, but in one on the other side of the Tiber. 


CH, XI.] POSITION OF HIPPOLYTUS, 257 


party had censured Zephyrinus for allowing persons 
guilty of carnal sins after baptism to have one more 
chance of repentance. Callistus seems to have extended 
this act of mercy to those who had sacrificed in time 
of persecution. But not even the bishop of Rome 
could have done this by himself. The episcopal power 
was strictly constitutional in character, and Callistus’ 
indulgence doubtless had the assent of the college 
of Roman presbyters. We may notice that during the 
Decian persecution the Roman presbyters, writing to 
Cyprian, speak of the antiqua severitas practised by 
their church, and pride themselves on their strictness 
of discipline. They say nothing of any break in the 
continuity of their policy in regard to offenders, and 
therefore so far ignored the charges brought by 
Hippolytus against Callistus. A bishop owing so little 
to antecedent prestige may well be supposed not to 
have acted without influential supporters in reforms 
so open to aspersion. We take it therefore that 
Hippolytus represented a discontented minority who 
wished to see no relaxation in that severe policy by which 
great offenders (subsequent penitence notwithstanding) 
‘were condemned to perpetual exclusion from the Church. 
In thus traversing a testimony, biassed as we believe 
by a narrow puritanical prejudice, we do not ignore 
the claims of Hippolytus to rank even with the greatest 
Roman Christians of the first three centuries. His 
Refutation of All the Heresies remains a noble product 
of his erudition, even though his zeal against Callistus 
may be thought to cast a blot on its reputation. One 
of the earliest Christian statues is a life-size figure of 
a bishop seated, said by some to be Hippolytus, but 
possibly intended to represent St. Peter.* On the out- 


1. Yet this concession had the authority of the ‘Shepherd’: ‘* post 
vocationem illam magnam...unam poenttentiam hadbet.” (Mand. iv. 3.) The 
same limitation seems to have obtained at Alexandria: Clement incorpo- 
rates this Mandate in Strom. ii. 13, adding however the classical Scriptural 
passage, Heb. x. 26, 27. 

2. The statue must have been erected either during the lifetime of 
Hippolytus or soon after his death, as the Paschal table which begins in 
A.D. 222 became manifestly erroneous in A.D. 241 when it was superseded. 
MacCarthy’s Annals of Ulster, vol. 1V., 1901, pp. xxxi—xl, clxii—cl xvii. 

R 


258 WHO WAS HIPPOLYTUS? (cH. x1. 


break of Maximin’s persecution Hippolytus was banished 
to Sardinia in company with Pontianus, the successor 
to the chair and policy of Callistus The two rivals 
died in exile, to all appearance reconciled in the 
common trial of their faith. Their bodies were 
brought back to Rome by Pope Fabian.? The impartial 
reverence of the Church included both Hippolytus and 
Callistus in the roll of her saints. A strange fate, 
however, overtook the memory of the former. He 
was identified with several legendary martyrs of the 
same name. Some fancied that he had suffered the 
fate of his more ancient name-sake, and had been torn 
asunder by wild horses.* His very office in the Church 
was forgotten. One form of the erratic legend moves 
this Western theologian to a see in Arabia.* Scientific 
archaeology has as yet failed to determine precisely 
the ecclesiastical status of Hippolytus. Bunsen con- 
siders him to have been a presbyter of Rome and at 
the same time bishop of Portus. Déllinger with more 
probability decides that he was a forerunner of the 
long line of antipopes, and that he allowed himself 
to be consecrated bishop of Rome in opposition to 
Callistus. Bp. Lightfoot in his posthumous work 
suggests that he held office as bishop of Portus with 
a general superintendence over such foreign Christians 
as came by sea to Rome. | 
poritiate The administration of Callistus may 
Callistus’s be said to anticipate the future trend of 
Pontificate: — the Church’s conceptions on three im- 
(2) Conception of portant topics. (1) We have seen that 
’ the ideal of a pure and exclusive com- 
munity championed by Tertullian and Hippolytus 
begins to succumb before the now familiar conception 
of a mixed Church, retaining unworthy members 
within the fold and leaving the sentence of permanent 
exclusion to the final judgement of God. ‘The stricter 


1. Dollinger, Aippolytus und Kallistus, p, 66. 

2. Jbid., pp. 223—235. 

3. So Prudentius, Peristephanon de Passione S. Hippolyti. 

4. Euseb., 2. £. vi. 20, ‘Esloxomos 5 obros hv (Beryllus) ray xara 


Béorpav "ApdBwy' doatrws 8 xat Immdduros Erépas wou kal aires 
mw poegTws éxkrAnolas. 


CH. X1.] ONCE A PRIEST ALWAYS A PRIEST, 259 


view may seem to triumph in the conflict which we shall 
presently find Cyprian, the inheritor of Tertullian’s 
theology, waging with the Novatian faction. But it 
is the ideal of Callistus that is destined to permanent 
ascendency. The early rule of refusing a second re- 
admission to lapsed penitents survived indeed in canons 
of the Church, but Socrates tells us how it is traversed 
by the great Chrysostom himself. In 589 the council 
of Toledo vainly complains that it has become a dead 
letter in the West. Was it a personal experience of 
the blessed effects of administrative leniency in leading 
a sinner to repentance that made this Pope of question- 
able moral antecedents thus vindicate the wisdom of 
St. James’s maxim, ‘‘Mercy glorieth against judgement’’? 
It is significant, after reading Hippolytus’ aspersions 
on the early career of Callistus, to find that the latter 
is the first Christian writer who insists on the necessity 
of evil as well as good elements in the Church of Christ, 
and who cites for this purpose the teachings of our 
Lord’s parable of the tares growing in the field beside 
the wheat, and the more fanciful analogy of the Ark 
with its beasts both clean and unclean. 

(2) Such a conception is naturally 
connected with a growing sense of the 
sanctity of the Church’s’ objective 
agencies, the Kingdom of Christ being viewed in its 
external relations and mechanical efficiency, rather 
than as an ideal claiming actually to display the purity 
of heaven upon earth.’ It is further worth noticing that 
it is Callistus who first enunciates that theory of the 
indelibility of Holy Orders which likewise was to 
become paramount. His opinions on this subject form 
part of Hippolytus’ indictment. The attitude of 
Callistus may indeed well be contrasted with that of 
an earlier Roman bishop. At the close of the first 
century Clement is moved to reprove the Corinthian 
community for an actual deposition of presbyters. In 
a lengthy epistle he inveighs against the spirit of 
jealousy and uncharitableness displayed, but nowhere 
does he use the argument of unassailable sacrosanctity 


(2) Indelibility of 
Holy Orders; 


1. Cf. Harnack, Ast. of Dogma, vol. 11., ch. ii. 
R2 


260 PRIMACY OF PETER. (CH. XI 


of office. The gist of the offence is in part centred 
not in any indelibility of function, but in the fact that 
the Corinthians had deposed from a consecrated vocation 
men who had led a blameless life. Here again Callistus 
may be contrasted with Cyprian, for Cyprian, despite 
his high conceptions of officialism, distinctly states that 
the episcopal office is forfeited if a bishop does not 
maintain the moral standard of the Gospel, and appears 
to have no notion of this theory of indelibility.1 And 
again, the view of Callistus is evidently in advance 
of his time. Even as late as 633 a cleric wrongfully 
deprived is not only to be reinstated but reordained, the 
rule given by the council of Toledo being “non potest 
esse quod fuevat nist grvadus amissos vecipiat coram 
altario.’’? G) All oe ie ‘ ! 

are familiar with the medi- 
er ttane aon hath interpretation of Matth. xvi. 18 
as the charter of the Papacy, and it is this text which 
blazoned in gigantic mosaics meets the eye of the 
traveller who gazes up into the mighty cupola of 
St. Peter’s church at Rome. It is Callistus who first 
cites this text as a promise not only to Peter but to 
those who are Peter’s successors in the episcopal chair 
of Rome. Tertullian in the subsequent controversy 
disallows this interpretation, which it need scarcely 
be said is ignored or contradicted by the great Patristic 
commentators of the two succeeding centuries. Again 
we are reminded of the career of Cyprian, for forty 
years later the Roman Stephen again adduces this 
text in his controversy with his brother of Carthage.* 
Cyprian weakly admits its relevancy so far as the 
pre-eminence of the Roman See is concerned, taking 
exception however to its application to an individual 
bishop of Rome. But again Callistus is practically 
far in advance of his times, interesting though the 
misappropriation of the text is as a herald of future 
history. We can scarcely read Tertullian’s sarcastic 


terms ‘episcopus episcoporum’ and ‘ pontifex maximus’* 


Cyprian, Epp. 65, 67, 68. cf. Harnack, ut supra. 
Dict. Christian Antiq., art. ‘Orders’. 

cf. Harnack, Hzst. of Dogma, vol. 11., p. 148, 

De Pudicitia, 1. 13. i 


fyye 


CH. X1.] ROMAN CHURCH PERSECUTED. 261 


in his controversy with Callistus, without reflecting, not 
only that these appellations were destined to be actually 
appropriated by the Popes although the great Gregory 
at the close of the sixth century still denounces the title 
“cumenical Bishop” as “proud and foolish” and 
“fan imitation of the devil”). 
Any weakness or irresolution shewn 
Ls fore ga by the bishops of Rome in the matter 
Valerian, Of the Monarchian dispute was amply 
atoned for by their conduct during the 
great persecution begun by Decius and continued down 
to the accession of Gallienus. Five successive Popes 
were martyred between a.p. 250 and 258. ‘The great 
importance of the Roman church is attested by the 
Emperor Decius, wha, after the martyrdom of Fabian, 
is reported by Cyprian to have said that he would 
rather see a rival for the Empire than a new bishop of 
Rome.? The church now remained for sixteen months 
without a bishop, and it was not till Decius was engaged 
in the Gothic war that a man was found to fill the 
vacancy. Cornelius was consecrated Fabian’s successor 
in June A.D. 251, when a temporary peace was brought 
to the Church by the defeat and death of Decius. But 
this immunity from external annoyance was marred by 
internal discord. The question of the treatment of 
those who had ‘lapsed’ during the persecution provoked 
such bitterness as to give rise to a serious schism. The 


stricter party, at the tine:..4; Nigel b 
of Cambatera turbulent person whos ovatus, a presbyter 


in his own church will be hereafter. noticed, Teagaus 
themselves in a schismatic community and took 7 1e 
name of Cathavi or Puritans. They chose as their 
bishop Novatian, a man whose gloomy 

Novatian Schism. 44 saturnine temper reminds us of the 
A.D. 26) Puritan leaders of a an cee peated 
red a severe spiritual conflict betore his con- 

See ering which ie seemed like one hoe by 
a daemon. ‘The prayer of an exorcist ie sre 
tranquillity, but serious bodily illness resulted trom the 


1. These observations on Callistus are supplied by the Rev. 


. C. Jennings. 
* a. Vata, Ep. 51 (to Antonianus). 


262 NOVATIAN. PAPAL MARTYRS.  [cH. x 


terrible mental anxiety through which he had passed. 
In this hour of seemingly mortal sickness he was 
baptized. On his recovery he applied himself to the 
work of a teacher, and his power of imparting know- 
ledge won the favour of Bishop Fabian. Contrary to 
the practice of the Church, which was opposed to the 
ordination of clinici (or persons baptized on what was 
wrongly supposed to be their death-bed), Fabian 
admitted Novatian to the rank of presbyter. In justice 
to Novatian we must add that he had no desire for pro- 
motion in the Church. His one wish apparently was to 
retire into austere seclusion! The busy and intriguing 
Novatus found however in Novatian the man for his 
purpose. Henceforth he headed the party which denied 
all hope of pardon to such baptized Christians as had 
offered sacrifice, or even obtained certificates of exemption 
(libelli) from the heathen magistrates. This schism 
at Rome long distracted the Church, and Novatianism 
flourished in Asia till as late as the fifth century. 
During the Arian controversy the followers of Novatian 
were rigidly orthodox, and the value of the testimony 
of this ancient sect was highly appreciated by the 
Catholics. Very soon after the schism of the Cathart 
persecution was renewed, and Cornelius and many of 
his flock retired to Centumcellae in Etruria. The bishop 
died in 252, whether as a martyr or not is uncertain. 
His successors, Lucius, Stephen and Xystus, or Sixtue IL, 


were all put to death. The influen-s~* te oman bishop 
-~ waS now beginning to be felt 


: 5 Bp! Seas © 

in ecclesiast of the Empire. We shall see how Stephen 
interfered with the African Christians in the question 
of the validity of heretical baptism, as we saw in an 
earlier chapter how Dionysius, bishop of Rome (A.D 
259—269), criticised the language of his name-sake of 
Alexandria.2?,— During the latter years of the third 
century we hear but little of the see of Rome, but in 
the days of persecution Marcellinus (a.p. 296—304) is said 
to have apostatised and confessed his guilt at a synod 
of three hundred bishops held at Sinuessa.$ | 


I. Eusebius, HZ. vi. 43. 
2. See Chapter VIII., page 166, 
3. Hefele, st. of the Councils, vol. 1, p. 127, Eng. Transl. There 


CH, XI.] FAMOUS AFRICAN CHRISTIANS. 264 


BOE , The Church of proconsular Africa and 
History of the Numidia does not boast of an Apostolic 
founder. There is no record of the 
planting of Christianity in Africa, and we know nothing 
even of the church of Carthage till the appearance of 
Tertullian at the close of the second century. ‘This is 
‘the more strange because from this time onward Roman 
Africa became a most flourishing centre of early Chris- 
tianity. The vigour of the faith displayed by the African 
Church is unexampled even in primitive days. No 
province produced more brilliant examples of constancy 
in martyrdom. No church can boast more illustrious 
names than those of the three great Africans, Tertullian, 
Cyprian, and Augustine. Nowhere, alas, has a more 
fatal example of the ills wrought by sectarian bitterness 
been manifested than here. Deeply impressive indeed is 
the history of these African Christians, great alike in 
their virtues and in their faults. The martyrdom of 
Perpetua and her companions (A.D. 203) gives a wonderful 
picture of the intensity of Christian convictions in this 
province. The Acts recording their testimony to the 
Faith must be read in full in order to appreciate how 
heroism was blended with Christian gentleness in their 
conduct and confession.1 It is said that these martyrs 
belonged to the sect of the Montanists; the enthusiastic 
doctrines of this party found certainly their most con- 
genial liome among the fervent Christians of Africa. 
Prertuiuan, “the “wos 6 
Tertullian, ~~ Montanism, combines in himsel ponent. of 
¢ 160-890; characteristics both of his. church and 
nation. He was a man of education, and had practised 
as an advocate before he became a Christian. He 
possessed very great talents, considerable power and 
variety of expression, and a wonderful readiness of 
seeing the fallacy of an argument brought forward by his 


ave doubts as to the story of Marcellinus’s apostasy. It is probable, 
ee vittele says, that it is a falsehood spread by the Donatists about the 
year 400. “nn 

1. Rendel Harris, Acts of Perpetua and Felicitas, and also Cambridge 
“Si vets and Studies, 1. i. Mason, Hestortc Martyrs of the Primitive 
* Church, ch. V. 


opponents! The sincerity of Tertullian’s convictions is 
as unquestionable as his zeal. He is a consistently 
high-hearted champion of the Christian Faith. But all 
is marred by his narrowness. His character was cast 
in a. thoroughly Puritan mould. ‘Tertullian is incapable 
of seeing any good outside his own circle, Unlike the 
Fathers of Alexandria, he can recognise no good in 
Philosophy; unlike the bishops of Rome, he acknow- 
ledges no virtue in moderation. The Bible appears 
to him unintelligible save to those who belong to the 
Church ;? heretics have no right to be heard; their 
erroneous opinions, to use his own expression, place 
them out of court. A Christian who had lapsed was 
regarded by Tertullian in the same light as a deserter 
appears in the eye of a brave soldier who is a stranger 
to fear: he deserves no consideration, ‘The mercy 
which the Church accorded to sinners (albeit severely 
limited) was to this zealot an offence. Tertullian was 
in fact unable to breathe the wide atmosphere of the 
Catholic Church. The narrow circle of the Montanistic 
community, which he probably joined at the time of the 
persecution of Septimius Severus, suited him far better.® 


1. See his ingenious but cogent arguments against purchasing tolera- 
tion, in his treatise De Fuga in Persecutione, quoted by Neander, Ch. Hist., 
vol. I., p. 168. The sixth chapter of this treatise, in which Tertullian 
combats the view that our Lord sanctions flight in persecution by His 
command to His Apostles in St. Matth. x. 22. ** When they persecute you 
in this city, flee unto the next”? (P- ¥+Js 1S a good specimen of Tertullian’s 
exegesis. 

_~=» -oee Chapter VII., page 147. 
3. Bunsen, Hippolytus and his Age, vol I., p. 254. Tertullian’s 


writings shew the change of his theoloc; tas 4 
following list :— § s theological opinions, Bunsen gives “ee 


PRE-MONTANIST Works :— 


Ad Martyres, De Spectaculis, De Idololatria Abologeti + 
wards recast and published in the two books 4d Wate ‘De yee 
Animae, Praescriptio adv. Haereticos. ‘If we add to this book” says 
Bunsen ‘*the admirable ethical treatises De Oratione, De Patientia, De 
Baptismo, De Poenttentia, Ad Uxorem, De Cultu Feminarum, we may sa 
that this was his best period of literary power, viz. just before A.D. 202.” 


MONTANIST Booxs :— 


De Pallio (the mention of three em aiteal seta 
perors, Septimius Severus, Get 

and Caracalla, fixes the date at A.D. 207 or Pa no Mer une 

(A.D. 208), De Corona Militz » De Fuga in Persecutione, Contra Genies 


“Se 

aia. = 

2 ss ; 
ee 


CH. XI.] CYPRIAN. 265 


But his genius was too great, and his aid too powerful to 
be ignored by the Church. Many of the treatises he 
wrote when a Montanist were too valuable contributions 
to the defence of the primitive Faith to be regarded as 
sectarian productions. The great bishop St. Cyprian 
prized his writings above all other theological works, 
and when he asked his secretary to hand him a volume 
of Tertullian he is reported to have said, ‘‘ Give me the 
master.” 

Lane Nor is the fanatical Montanist wholly 
Cyprian, bishop unlike the more genial bishop of Carthage. 
of Carthage ; ; ; } 
A.D. 248—258; Cyprian was superior to his teacher in 

breadth of sympathy, but he had not 
studied Tertullian for nothing. He agreed with his 
master in thinking that there was no virtue outside 
the Church. ‘Tertullian in his controversies with 
Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome, on the propriety of 
admitting persons guilty of carnal sin after baptism 
to reconciliation, and Cyprian in his efforts to sustain 
the episcopal power, were alike actuated by this belief. 
The difference between them lies in the fact that 
Tertullian wished to narrow the Church by his rigour, 
whilst Cyprian desired to win men to enter its pale.} 
The two agree in their admiration of a severe discipline 
towards sinners, but Tertullian advocates an impossible 
strictness with all the warmth of a theorist, whilst 
Cyprian in punishing offenders exercises the wise dis- 
cretion of a practical man. A brief résumé of his life 
will suffice to shew that Cyprian claims a position 
among the greatest Christian bishops. Thascius 
Caecilianus Cyprianus was a man of birth, wealth, 
and station. By profession he was a rhetorician, and 


Scorpiace, Adv. Praxeam, De Exhortatione Castitatis, De Monogamia, 
De Pudicitia, De Jejunits, De Virginibus velandis, Adv. Hermogenem, De 
Anima, De Carne Christi, De Resurrectione Carnis, Adversus Valentinz- 
anos, Adversus Judaeos. : 

1. As in the case of Cyprian’s readiness to re-admit those of the 
faction of Novatianus who discovered that it was leading to a schism. 
Archbishop Benson (Cyfrzan, p. 163) remarks: “‘ The temperate firmness 
and the serene joy of Cyprian’s remonstrance, and congratulation to the 
confessors on their secession and return, place the 46th and 54th letters 
among the most delicate specimens of the collection, and are alone enough 
to give Cyprian a foremost rank among wise and loving saints. 


366 OPPOSITION TO CYPRIAN. (CH. x1. 


possibly, like his ‘master’ Tertullian, an advocate. He 
was owner of some of the finest pleasure-grounds in 
Carthage, which he sold after his conversion for the 
benefit of the poor. His friends however evinced their 
esteem for him by repurchasing the property and restoring 
it to its former owner. Like Ambrose and other successful 
bishops, Cyprian had passed his early life in civil 
occupation. He was converted late in life and raised 
to the see of Carthage within two years of his baptism. 
He tells us that he was elected by the plebs of the 
church, who insisted on his being their bishop, and 
throughout his troublous episcopate he retained their 
support... Among his clergy, however, five presbyters 


headed by Novatus regarded with implacable resent- 


ment this elevation of a novice. 
The story of Cyprian’s. episcopate 
Farty opposed to appeals to the sympathies of all Christian 

yprian ae 

at Carthage; ministers who have suffered from the 
opposition of a factious minority. His- 
torians have delighted in discovering in Novatus an 
opponent of the hierarchical assumptions of the bishops 
and an asssertor of the ancient rights of the presbyterate. 
It seems more in accordance with human nature to 
assuine that disappointed ambition lay at the bottom 
of his resolve to oust Cyprian from the position of 


bishop of Carthage. Novatus was one of the five 


presbyters whom Cyprian’s election had offended. This 
“firebrand’’® (as Cyprian not unreasonably designates 
him) found in an incident of the Decian persecution an 
vpportunity of venting his spite on the new bishop. 
Cyprian had early withdrawn from Carthage, in order 
to govern the church from a safe retreat during this 
terrible crisis. The action evinces that higher courage 
which pursues the path of duty regardless of the im- 
putation of cowardice. ‘The first fury of the persecution 
abated, in the same spirit Cyprian returned to curb 


I. Cyprian speaks very strongly on the responsibility laid on the 
people of choosing a fit and proper person as bishop. (Z/. 67. 2.) He says 
that a bishop is appointed by divine sanction, the suffrages of the people, 
and the consent of his fellow bishops. (Zp. 59. 6.) 

2. ‘Fax et ignis ad conflanda seditionis incendia.” And again, 


** Novatus qui apud nos discordiae incendium seminavit.” (2. 52. 2.) 


Archbp. Benson, Cyprian, p. 111. 


{ 


= 
= 


CH. XI. J NOVATUS AND FELICISSIMUS. 267 


an abuse characteristic of the age and place. A custom 
obtained that the Church’s pardon should be accorded 
to recusants in deference to petitions from those stronger 
brethren who had attested their faith by suffering. 
The ‘lapsed’, who were very numerous after the 
persecution of Decius, were found by Cyprian to 
be clamouring for admission to the Church on the 
score of the merits of the martyrs and confessors.! 
Discipline demanded that those in authority in the 
Church should deal wisely and firmly with all who 
had shewn weakness in the hour of trial. To resist 
the interference of the confessors was however no easy 
matter, for the exaggerated reverence of the Carthaginian 
Christians gave to their wishes the force of commands. 
Novatus saw his opportunity. He put himself on the 
side of the confessors, and with the aid of a certain 
Felicissimus, an influential member of the diaconate, 
formed a strong party against Cyprian.? The bishop 
acted with great discretion. On the one hand he saved 
himself from the reproach of disregarding the confessors’ 
claims; on the other, he avoided the danger of relaxing 
discipline. He accepted the libelli pacis granted by 
the confessors, but insisted that the bishop before he 


admitted any lapsed person to communion should be 


satisfied as to the genuineness of his penitence. A 
synod was held at Carthage, and the policy of Cyprian 
met with the approval of the African Church. The 
course of events shewed the factious and unprincipled 
conduct of Novatus and his unscrupulous supporter 
Felicissimus, who assisted him as deacon in the ad- 
ministration of the district in Carthage known as 
‘the Mount’, possibly containing the Byrsa or Capitol of 


‘the city. Novatus visited Rome after the death of Fabian, 


A.D. 250, schism still attending his track; but there 
he found that the confessors were not on the side of 
leniency, and that the question of the lapsed was not 


'z, ©©Communicet ille cum suis” (Z/. 15. 4) was often the loose 
wording of the /zbe//i pacts issued by the confessors. The abuse had already 
vexed the righteous Tertullian, cf. De Pudicttza, c. 22. whee Se 

2. Neander (Church History, vol. 1., p. 324) says that Felicissimus 
probably used the control over the church funds, which he enjoyed as 
deacon, as a means of furthering the interests of his party. 


268 CYPRIAN’S OPINIONS, [CH. XL 


agitating the Church in the same manner as in Africa. 
Heading the party of extreme severity, he thereupon 
procured, as we have seen, the election of the first 
anti-pope, the gloomy and fanatical Novatian. 

As Cyprian uses language about the 
episcopal dignity which matches that of 
the Ignatian Epistles, his part in this 
episode has been depicted as that of a narrow-minded 
prelate bent on asserting his official claims.1 The 
circumstances lead us to regard this as an unjust 
misrepresentation. We must bear in mind that, when 
Cyprian was elected bishop, he was chosen by the 


Cyprian’s view 
of Episcopacy ; 


people to lead them in a most terrible crisis. The 


Empire under Decius and his successors was putting 
forth all its strength to crush the Church. The per- 
secution was literally a war of extermination. Cyprian 
felt it his duty to God, and to those who had chosen 
him, to uphold his authority. Those who blame him 
ignore the fact that Novatus and his partisans were 
not the chosen leaders of the church. ‘Their schism 
was in reality a revolt against the choice of the laity. 
No instance of Cyprian morosely excluding others 
from his counsels is alleged. It would seem, indeed, 
that he took the advice of his people whenever possible, 
and shewed a readiness to be guided by the decisions 
of synods. Traditions of his personality represent 
no arrogant ecclesiastic, but a large-hearted and a 
singularly loveable man. His treatment of those 
Novatians who made their peace with the Church 
shews how generously he could forget the annoyances of 
former opposition. Nevertheless Cyprian, 
as has been shewn, shared some of the 
narrow views of Tertullian. It had long 
been the custom of the Roman church to allow that all 


Cyprian and 
Re-baptism; 


1. See Archbp. Benson’s summary of the views of O. Ritschl and 
A. Harnack on the Eighth Epistle, sent nominally by the Roman clergy— 
a very illiterate production, which seeks to lower Cyprian in the eyes 
of his clergy by innuendos as to his motive for absenting himself from 
Carthage. Cyprian, p. 148. 

2. During Cyprian’s episcopate the following synods were held at 
Carthage: (1) the council which discussed the validity of Cornelius’s 
election as bishop of Rome and the case of Felicissimus, April, A.D. 
251; (2) the softening of penances, May, A.D. 252; (3) and (4) Sept., 


CH. XI] SCHISMS IN AFRICA. 269 


baptism in the name of the Trinity was valid, and Pope 
Stephen endeavoured to enforce this in Africa. Cyprian 
could not admit the validity of any rite performed out- 
side the Church, and in his correspondence with Stephen, 
whilst he vindicated the liberty of his church and province, 
he shewed a less liberal spirit in regard to heretics than 
the Roman bishop.!. From the martyrdom of Cyprian, 
A.D. 258, to the persecution under Diocletian, the history 
of the church of Carthage and Africa is of little 
importance. No Christian community, however, dis- 
played more constancy and courage during that 
terrible ordeal. After the Edict of Milan, a.p. 313, 
the schism of the Donatists caused the divisions of 
the African “Church to become a by-word in Chris- 
tendom till they were in part allayed by the great 
Augustine. 


The city of Alexandria has had a more 

Sr ror ri powerful influence on the human mind 
"than any other of antiquity, Jerusalem 

and Athens alone excepted. It united three continents 
and presented in itself the distinctive types of the main 
divisions of the human race. It was the permanent 
trophy of a conqueror divinely appointed, as Plutarch 
deems, to bring Greek culture to the barbarians:? to 
fuse (we may add) the ideas of East and West. Founded 
by Greeks, Alexandria became a centre of Greek philo- 
sophy and learning. Its situation made it the common 
mart of Europe and Asia, through which not only the 
trade but also the ideas of the East passed westward. 
Standing on African soil at the mouth of the great 
river of Egypt, Alexandria caught something of the 
spirit of that wonderful civilization and religion which 


A.D. 253 and 254, Episcopal cases and an appeal from Spain against 
Rome; and (5) A.D. 255, (6) Lent, a.p. 256, (7) Sept., A.D. 256, on 
re-baptism. See Benson, of. cit. 

1. Cyprian, £4. 74, 75. In justice to Cyprian it must be remem- 
bered that the general view of baptism was that it purged all sins, and that 
sin after baptism was infinitely more heinous than before. Cyprian’s desire 
may have been to give heretics who entered the Church the full advantage 
of the baptismal Sacrament. 

2. Neander, Church History, vol. 1., p. 69. Mahaffy, S7/ver Age of 
the Greek World, p. 283. 


270 THE ALEXANDRIAN CHURCH. __ [cH, xu 


was old when many ancient races of Europe and Asia 


were young, and still combined the animal-worship of a 
barbarous paganism with lofty doctrines of life and 
immortality. The same inconsistency manifests itself 


in the history of Greek and Christian Alexandria. We 


have repeatedly to contrast the profoundest wisdom 
and wisest liberality of thought with the most awful 
exhibitions of fanaticism and ferocity. The great school 
of Greek philosophy was in the zenith of its glory when 
the mob of Alexandria tore a man in pieces and devoured 
him. The Alexandrian church, under its bishop, Cyril, 
was defining the creed of the world when the populace, 
urged on by frantic monks, tore the beautiful Hypatia 
to death limb from limb.? To Alexandria and Egypt 
we are indebted alike for the glories and the shame of 
the Christian religion—for the best specimens of Chris- 
tian philosophers, scholars and theologians, and for some 
of the most repulsive examples of monastic brutality. 
The history of the church of Alexandria may be 
said to precede Christianity, in the sense that many 
Christian ideas and usages existed there long before 
the introduction of the Gospel. The attempt to exalt 
Serapis into the position of a god for the whole world 
shewed how a tendency to universality in religion was 
already dominating heathenism.? Here Judaism had 
translated its sacred writings into Greek, and had even 
evinced its sympathy with heathen philosophy by its 
attempt to prove that the sages of Greece had learned 
their wisdom from Moses and the Prophets. The Thera- 
peutae had already formed communities in the neigh- 
bourhood of Lake Mareotis, near Alexandria, for the 
purpose of prayer and ascetic discipline.t Renan, not 
without reason, infers that the presence of a liberal and 
active Judaism, which largely satisfied the cravings of 


1. Juvenal, Sat., xv. 80. 2. Socrates, H, Z. vit. 15. 

3. Serapis was introduced into Egypt by Ptolemy I. Tacitus, 
Hist. iv. 84. ; 

4. Eusebius, A. Z#. 11. 173 but see Prof. Gwatkin’s Studies of 
Arianism, in which the De Vita Contemplativa is called ‘a religious novel 
of the fourth century”: it is not, however, certain that this is correct, 
Mr. Conybeare, in his edition of the treatise, being very strongly in favour 
of the Philonic authorship. For history of the criticism see Sanday, 
Criticism of the Fourth Gospel, pp. 54 fi. 


> ry 
oe ee 


CH. X1.] ITS CONSTITUTION. 271 


the human spirit, accounts for the comparatively late 
introduction of Christianity into Egypt. In the Christian 
history, with its lengthy list of towns visited by Apostles, 
Alexandria indeed is conspicuously absent. In the New 
Testament we have no mention of any community of 
Alexandrian believers; and Apollos, the only Alexandrian 
Jew whose name occurs in the Acts and Epistles, was 
connected with the church of Ephesus. We have to 
content our curiosity with the tradition quoted by 
Eusebius, that St. Mark, after publishing St. Peter’s 
teaching to gratify the Christians of Rome, journeyed 
to Egypt and founded the Alexandrian church.} 

The constitution of the Church in 
Alexandria was somewhat unusual. The 
Christians divided the city into twelve 
districts, each of which was assigned to the care of a 
presbyter. Together the twelve presbyters formed a 
college which claimed the right of electing a bishop 
from their number, and (if we may credit Jerome) of 
consecrating him themselves.2 This custom prevailed 
till the time of Demetrius, a.p. 189—232, who is said by 
Eutychius, patriarch of Alexandria in the tenth century, 
to have changed this singular ecclesiastical arrangement 
by appointing three bishops in addition to the bishop 
of Alexandria, who had formerly governed the whole 
province. During the long episcopate of Demetrius 
the three great teachers, Pantaenus, Clement, and 
Origen, presided over the famous Catechetical School of 
Alexandria. The conduct of the bishop towards the 
last-named scholar proves him to have been a strict 
and somewhat arbitrary upholder of the authority of 
his office. The church and city of Alexandria, however, 
were visited by severe calamities in the time of Demetrius, 
when his firmness must have been of value to the Chris- 
tian community. The severe persecution of Septimius 
Severus took place a.p. 202; and his ferocious son 
Caracalla, two years before his death in 217, irritated 
by: the railleries of the Egyptians, ordered a general 
massacre of the Alexandrians, in which many thousands 


1. Eusebius, A. &. 11. 16. 
2. See above, Chapter X., p. 227, n. 4. 
3. Lightfoot, PAclippzans, p. 230. 


Bishops of 
Alexandria; 


272 BISHOPS OF ALEXANDRIA, (CH. x1. 


perished.’ Demetrius was succeeded by two pupils of 
Origen, Heraclas (a.p. 233—248), and the wise and 
learned Dionysius (a.D. 248—265), called by Eusebius 
“the great bishop of Alexandria”.? Reference has 
already been made in this work both to the persecution 
of Decius which was especially severe at Alexandria 
in the time of Dionysius, and to the plague and famine 
which visited the city during his episcopate. We have 
also had occasion to notice the wisdom and moderation 
displayed by the same bishop in the doctrinal disputes 
of his time. 

Alexandria was the chief centre of a 
method of interpretation which has taken 
a very powerful hold of the human imagination. 
Allegorism, or the attempt to extract a twofold meaning 
from ancient writers and poets, was not peculiar either 
to Jews or Christians. It has its origin in the feeling 
that, whilst the venerable antiquity of certain books 
gives them a sanctity in the eyes of their readers, their 
contents are not always such as to inspire sufficient 
reverence. The plain narrative is accordingly assumed 
to conceal a profounder meaning at which the author 
only hinted in types and shadows. The philosophers 
of Greece applied this method in dealing with the poems 
of Homer. ‘These were not only used as an educational 
manual for boys and students, but were also regarded 
in the light of a sacred record of Greek antiquity. In 
the hands of such teachers Homer became a manual of 
physical science and moral philosophy. To them the 
narrative, valueless in itself, was but a peg for the 
attachment of transcendental truths. The story of Paris, 
for example, is the history of the soul in its sensuous 
life, which sees not the other powers in the world but 
only Beauty, and says that the apple (i.e. the World) is 
the property of Love. The Odyssey, again, represented 
man as carried here and there on the sea of life by his 
passions, and tempted by the siren-voice of pleasure.’ 
The allegorical method seems to have been first applied 


Allegorism. 


1. Gibbon, Decline and Fall, ch. vi. 
2. Euseb., H. #. vil. Praef. A 
3. See Hatch, Hzbbert Lectures, 1888, p. 64. 


i ' 
de |. ” : 
SS ee 


CH, XI.] ALLEGORY AND SCRIPTURE. 273 


to the Jewish Scriptures in Alexandria by Philo. The 
Christian teachers followed in his steps. They found 
the Old Testament narratives often as perplexing as 
the philosophers had found the Homeric accounts of 
the gods, and felt more keenly than their rivals the 
necessity of proving their sacred books a compendium 
of all truth. Allegorism was their sole means of escape 
from the difficulty. Thus it is that Philo, Clement, 
Origen, and their less able disciples, persistently wrest 
the Scriptures into a collection of types foreshadowing 
their own peculiar notions! The effects of this mistaken 
treatment of the writings held in reverence by the 
Church are still apparent in that absolutely unhistorical 
spirit in which certain modern commentators ignore 
the standpoint of the ancient author in their endeavour 
to make him the exponent of the theological views of 
their own day. Prompted originally by a rationalising 
spirit, allegorism has become the servant of those who 
refuse to avail themselves of increasing light in their 
perusal of the Scriptures. To the Alexandrian Fathers, 
however, let us add, we owe its remedy, no less than 
the transmitted disease. Origen, the most allegorical 
interpreter of Scripture, laid the foundation of a sounder 
method of study, which became the glory of the school 
of Antioch. His labours in the field of critical enquiry 
deserve the careful attention of the student. 
! i Frequent allusion has already been made 
pie of oviger- tothe great name of Origen. A short résumé 
of the chief facts of his life may be of service 
to the reader before approaching the important subject 
of his critical labours. Origenes Adamantius, born 185, 
the son of Leonides, an Alexandrian Christian, was 
perhaps, as his name implies, of Egyptian descent.? His 
father gave him a thorough education, not only in the 
Christian but also in the Greek literature, and from the 
first Origen combined the diligence of a student with 
the fervour of a believer. When Leonides suffered 


1. One very striking feature in Origen is his dread of the homeliness 
of Scripture. Bigg, Church’s Task, p. 26. 

2. Epiphanius calls him an Egyptian, Porphyry (ap. Euseb., 7. Z. 
vi. 19) a Greek. The name Origen is derived from the Egyptian deity 
Horus. 


S 


274 ORIGEN AT ALEXANDRIA, © (CH. x 


martyrdom in the persecution of Septimius Severus, it 


was with difficulty that the mother of Origen prevented 
the boy from deliberately provoking the same fate. 
Leonides left seven children, of whom Origen was the 
eldest. The family was supported, partly by a wealthy 
widow, and partly by the fees received by Origen from 
his pupils. His zeal for Christianity, however, soon 


induced the youthful lecturer to abandon the work of 


teaching Greek literature. In order that he might 
devote himself completely to sacred studies, he sold his 
manuscripts for a pension of 4 obols (about 6d.) a day. 
On this scanty pittance he managed to live the life of 
a strict ascetic. At the early age of eighteen, Origen 
was appointed by bishop Demetrius to succeed his 
former master Clement as the head of the Catechetical 
School of Alexandria, a.D. 204. His lectures were largely 
attended, and he appears to have possessed a singular 


power of arousing the enthusiasm of his disciples. 


Among these was Gregory Thaumaturgus, afterwards 
bishop of Neocaesarea, who has described the method 
of his exposition. We gather that he made it his aim 
to interpret by the light of Christianity all that was 
valuable in the old philosophies. Porphyry relates 
that Origen himself attended the school of Ammonius 


Saccas, the great Neo-Platonist.! If he did so, it was 


doubtless with the laudable purpose of keeping himself 
abreast with the best pagan philosophy of the day. 
From a similar motive in regard to Judaism he departed 
from the custom of his age and studied Hebrew. 
Opportunities were not at this time far to seek, for 
his mother, as we infer from the account of Jerome, 


had also acquired that language. In view of the rarity 


of such attainments we may perhaps conjecture that 
she was a Jewess by birth. 

In A.D. 215 a serious tumult at Alexandria compelled 
Origen to leave the city. He retired to Palestine, where 
he was received with great honour by Alexander, bishop 
of Jerusalem, and Theotecnus, bishop of Caesarea, who 
invited him to expound the Scriptures in the religious 


1. Dict. Chr. Biog., art. ‘Origenes’, vol. IV., p. 99. Euseb., 2. 2, 
VI. 19. 


CH. XI] ORIGEN IN SYRIA. 275 


assemblies of the Christians. This appointment, rarely 
accorded to a layman, was considered by bishop 
Demetrius as an infringement on the privileges of 
the clerical order. He peremptorily recalled Origen 
to his duties at the head of the Alexandrian Cate- 
chetical School, a.p. 219. Origen on his return entered 
upon a new sphere of activity. Hitherto he had been 
a teacher; now, at the instigation of his friend 
Ambrosius, he began to publish his lectures. Ambrosius 
was a man of considerable wealth, and was able to 
hire a large number of male and female clerks to copy 
Origen’s treatises.1 He appears to have acted the part 
of both patron and friend, and Origen playfully calls 
him his “‘ taskmaster” (épryoSubeerns). Origen left most 
of the work of the Catechetical School to his colleague 
Heraclas, and devoted himself to the publication of 
the Commentary on St.) Jolin;#andi of wihis'*-bold 
philosophical work on First Principles (wept apyav). We 
have elsewhere had occasion to notice Origen’s final 
breach with Demetrius. It is sufficient to observe here 
that its occasion was the great Alexandrian’s receiving 
ordination as presbyter in the foreign town of Caesarea. 
In the year 231 Origen finally quitted Alexandria. ‘The 
bishops of Syria welcomed him, and, notwithstanding 
the remonstrances of Demetrius, allowed him to teach 
at Caesarea, which was henceforward Origen’s home. 
The persecution of Maximinus (A.D. 235—237) compelled 
him to withdraw for a while to Cappadocia. He here 
became the guest of Juliana, a Christian lady, in whose 
house he found some of the books of Symmachus, the 
translator of the Old Testament. In 238 Origen was 
again at Caesarea. He subsequently spent some time 
in Greece, and, besides visiting many places in the Holy 
Land, made two expeditions into Arabia by special 
invitation, to refute Beryllus of Bostra, and to explain 
the true doctrine of the Resurrection. Under the per- 
secution of Decius this noted Christian teacher was 
selected for torture and a cruel imprisonment, which 
hastened his end. He died at Tyre (a.p. 253) at the age 
of sixty-nine. 


1. Hom. in Johann. vi. 2, Euseb., 4. 2. Vi. 23. 
$2 


276 THE SCRIPTURES IN GREEK. [CH. XI. 


The Hexapla, that great monurnent 
of the industry of Origen, was long the 
glory of the church of Caesarea. In this work the 
Old Testament was presented to the reader with the 
Hebrew original and the different Greek versions in 
parallel columns.’ The object of its publisher was both 
to shew the superiority of the ancient Septuagint version 
when compared with more recent translations, and also 
to emend its text. It must be remembered that the 
Christians of that uncritical age regarded the Lxx with 
deep veneration, and that it was from this translation 
that they drew their arguments against the Jews. It 
was believed to be a divinely inspired work. Justin, 
Irenaeus, and Clement agree in relating the story of each 
of the seventy-two translators being shut up in different 
cells, and all producing the same version with verbal 
exactitude.? The Jews of Palestine, although they must 
have known how widely the xx differed in places from 
the Hebrew, acquiesced in the Alexandrian version 
without much demur. When, however, they found that 
the Christian controversialists made large use of passages 
widely divergent from the original, they naturally began 
to recognise its blemishes, New Greek translations of 
the Scriptures were accordingly produced, and in these 
some of the so-called Messianic prophecies were so 
rendered as to lose their significance. Irenaeus, for 
example, points out that in the well-known verse 
(Isa. vii. 14), ‘Behold, a Virgin shall conceive,” the 
versions of Aquila and Theodotion had altered the 
Septuagint’s mapOévos into vedvis, a young woman.® 
Origen, in order to shew the excellence of the Lxx, 
which had become the Christian Old Testament, placed 
it side by side with the other versions and the Hebrew 
original, The Hebrew occupied the first column; in 
the second was a mere transliteration—the Hebrew 


The Hexapla. 


1. Origen also published the four Greek versions by themselves. 
This is known as the Tetrapla. Euseb., 4. #. vi. 16. 

2. Bleek, Jutrod. Old Test., vol. 11, p. 397. Irenaeus, iii, 21. 
Clem. Alex., Strom. i, 22. Justin Martyr, Cohort. ad Graec., c. 13. 
Epiphanius (de Mens. et Pond., cc. 3, 6, 9—11) only differs in making the 
seventy-two interpreters work in pairs in thirty-six cells. 

3. Iren., Maer. III. 23. 


CH. X1.] LITERALISM AND ALLEGORISM. 277 


being put in Greek characters. Aquila’s version came 
next: then that of Symmachus; the .Lxx and the 
translation by Theodotion occupying the last two 
columns. In some passages two other versions were 
added, the work being called the Hexapla from the six 
principal columns. We have said that emendation 
formed part of Origen’s design. Where words in the 
original were not expressed in the Lxx the hiatus was 
filled up. Where words in the Lxx had no counterpart 
in the Hebrew an obelus indicated the divergence 
from the original.} 


The publication of the Hexafla was 
a great step towards the science of 
Biblical criticism. A new school of 
Biblical exegesis arose in the Church. We have seen 
how the fantastical system of allegorizing the Scriptural 
narrative led the Alexandrian Fathers astray. A cor- 
rective to this was provided by the school of Antioch. 
The Syrian Christians, who had supported Origen in his 
dispute with Demetrius, continued his work. A noble 
line of textual and grammatical commentators carried 
on what the great Alexandrian had begun. Pamphilus, 
and his friend and disciple the historian Eusebius, 
Lucian the Martyr, and Dorotheus, were the prominent 
scholars during and after Diocletian’s persecution ;* and 
their method of interpreting Scripture was inherited by 
the greatest of the Antiochene Fathers, John Chrysostom. 
The history of the fourth and fifth centuries shews 
how the difference between the two great schools of 
Alexandria and Antioch distracted the Christian 
world—the mysticism of the one leading to Monophy- 
sitism, the literalism of the other to the error of 
Nestorius. Inasense the controversy between allegorism 
and literalism in interpretation is an eternal one. Alle- 
gorism, with all its extravagances, maintains the truth 


The School of 
tioch. 


1. For full information as to the rules observed by Origen in restoring 
the text of the Lxx, see Prolegomena in Hexapla Origents, Field, Hexapla, 
vol. 1. Hier. 2m Ep. ad Titum. See Dr. Swete, /utroduction to Old 
Test. tn Greek, Pt. 1, c. iil. 

2, Eusebius and Pamphilus copied the Lxx from Origen’s Hexap/a. 
Lucian the Martyr also devoted much attention to the text of the Lxx. 


278 DEFECTS OF LITERALISM. (CH. XI. 


that beneath the surface of such writings as the Jewish 
and Christian Scriptures lies a deeper and fuller 
meaning. Literalism, despite the good sense and calm 
judgment which are its boast, sometimes results in the 
true sense being sacrificed to the supposed exigencies of 
grammatical or critical canons, 


CHAPTER XII. 


CONSTANTINE IN THE WEST. 
THE EMPIRE AND THE CHURCH. 


Tue Edict of Milan! is one of the 
Sree heme _ turning-points in the history of the world. 
A.D. 313. Though to all outward appearance it was 
merely an edict of toleration, giving every 
subject of the Empire the right to worship according 
to the dictates of his conscience, it was of far deeper 
significance. In recognising the right of the Christian 
Church to exist, Constantine had given her the power 
to rule. The association which had survived such an 
attack as Diocletian’s great persecution had proved to 
mankind that it possessed a vitality, which would 
enable it ultimately to crush all the effete pagan 
religions within the limits of the Roman empire. That 
Constantine as a statesman recognised the significance 
of his action is shewn by the fact that he very soon 
earnestly set himself to work to unite and consolidate the 
Church, and before he was even a Christian catechumen 
took an interest in the question of that deepest mystery 
of the Faith, the relation of the Word or Son to the 
God and Father of All. 
It requires but little knowledge of 
“i pegnpel pana human nature to credit Constantine with 
Rothe Chasen? * a real belief in the spiritual character 
of the Christian Faith, and with much 
genuine conviction in adopting it. To ascribe to the 
Emperor no higher motive than a desire to utilise the 
_ Church as an engine of government would be to do him 
no small injustice, as well as to mistake his personal 


1. Vide supra, p. 92. 


280 RELIGION OF CONSTANTINE, (CH. XII. 


character. Nevertheless we are tolerably safe in at- 
tributing to Constantine a certain amount of deliberate 
policy in sanctioning and encouraging the development 
of the Christian Church. He had been sent by his 
father Constantius at the age of eighteen (A.D. 292) 
to the court of Diocletian, and had been a special 
favourite of that statesmanlike emperor.’ This was 
long before the outbreak of the persecution, and the 
youth may, even at that early age, have recognised 
in the Church the possible ally of a good ruler. His 
experience of the persecution under Galerius may well 
have convinced him that a hostile policy was a totally 
mistaken one; and his subsequent rivalry with Maxentius 
revealed to him the advantage of the support of a body 
like the Christians, desiring public tranquillity and a 
regular government. But political motives were not the 
Emperor's sole reason for gradually repudiating Paganism. 
It has been observed that military leaders have often 
proved very susceptible to religious influences.? The 
peril to which they may be at any moment exposed 
makes such men naturally seek protection from above ; 
and a general whose efforts have been crowned with 
constant success, or who is about to undertake some 
desperate enterprise, often attributes the former to divine 
protection, and approaches the latter resolved to trust in 
that power which has hitherto preserved him.. Con- 
stantine’s career seems to justify this observation. In 
early life he believed himself to be under the peculiar 
protection of the Sun-god. At the supreme crisis of the 
contest with Maxentius, however, he appears to have 
decided that the God Whose adversaries had perished so 
miserably? was the most powerful assistant he could 
invoke. Eusebius’ account‘ of his vision and of the 


1. Euseb., Vita Const. 1.19. The courtly historian compares him 
to Moses in the palace of Pharaoh. Diocletian is admitted to have been 
very favourable to the Christians early in his reign. 


2. Broglie, L’£glise et 2 Empire, vol. 1., p. 213. 
Both Herculius (Maximian) and Severus had perished at the hands 


of the executioner, and Galerius had died of an awful disease. Broglie, 
op. ezt., vol. I., p. 243. 


4. Euseb., Vita Const. 1. 27, évvoet 577a dwotov Séor Gedy éwvypdacbas 
B6y8ov indicates the pagan attitude of the Emperor’s mind at that time. 


CH. xu.] WAS THE VISION MIRACULOUS? 281 


adoption of the Labarum as a standard, shews what 
a strange mixture of pagan and Christian ideas existed 
in his mind. 
3 The mysterious appearance which had 
the Vision of such an effect on Constantine has been 
related by Eusebius and Lactantius, who 
were both contemporaries of the Emperor.) ‘Their 
accounts differ very materially, and their conflicting 
evidence throws a doubt on the story. That Constantine 
thought he had seen a vision, or even that he actually 
did see something, seems evident, but the nature of 
the apparition is not equally clear. The miraculous 
character of the vision has been called in question 
on various grounds, the strongest of which seems to 
be its inconsistency with the character of the Gospel 
dispensation and the teaching of its Divine Founder. 
That He who had foretold that they that used the 
sword should perish by the sword should consecrate 
war by making the cross on which He had redeemed 
mankind a charm to secure victory in battle, is sufficiently 
incredible. How is the difficulty increased when we 
reflect that the warrior thus frequently favoured by 
visions from on High? was about to shed the blood of 
his own son in such an intrigue as might befit the palace 
of a Herod or a Philip II. of Spain! But however we 


1. Eusebius, Vita Const. 1. 28. Lactantius, De Mortibus Per- 
secutorum, c. 44. Eusebius, writing after Constantine’s death in A.D. 337, 
says that the Emperor had told him and swore to the truth of his words, 
that just after midday he and the whole army had seen a luminous cross in 
the sky above the sun, inscribed with the words ‘ By this conquer’; and 
that the ensuing night Christ had appeared to him directing him to frame 
a standard like it as a means of victory. Nothing is said about the miracle 
by Eusebius in the Tenth Book of his Azstory published in a.p. 326. 
According to Lactantius, just before the battle at the Milvian Bridge 
**Constantine was directed in a dream to cause the heavenly sign to be 
delineated on the shields of his soldiers, and so to proceed to battle.” The 
triumphal arch of Constantine records that he had saved and avenged the 
Roman republic ‘‘instinctu Divinitatis, mentis. magnitudine”. And the 
fact of some divine manifestation at this time to the Emperor is alluded to 
vaguely in Paneg. 313, and precisely by the pagan orator Nazarius. 
See Constantine the Great by J. B. Firth (Heroes of the Nations), pp. 94 f£; 
Abbott, Phz/omythus, p. 165. i De 

2. Kal yap 5) xal Oeodavelas adtov wodddxis Hélov, says Eusebius, 
op. cit. 1. 47. Crispus, son, and Fausta, wife, of Constantine were 
executed A.D. 326. 


282 CONSTANTINE’S POLICY. — [CH. XIL. 


regard the conversion of Constantine and the attendant 
miracle, we must admit that the story reveals to us the 
fact that we are on the threshold of the middle ages, 
It is no long step from the legend of the Labarum, 
which made the Cross the ensign of the army that 
fought the battle of the Church, to the proclamation 
of religious warfare. ‘The age in which Christ appeared 
to Constantine, and ordered him to fight with a good 
courage against Maxentius, foreshadows that in which 
St. Peter invites Charles Martel to attack the Lombards. 
It breathes indeed the spirit of the time when the Cross 
was taken by the Christian nations on the eve of the 
first Crusade. 
a Apparently the first act of the Emperor 
ality artes itp Constantine was to put forth a rescript 
Battle ofthe tolerating all religious bodies. The text 
gee a has not come down tous. Neander infers 
D312, ++‘that it gave a person leave to continue 
in the religious body in which he happened 
to be at the time, but did not permit him to forsake it 
for another.!. De Broglie on the other hand supposes 
that it contained a permission to all sects to practise 
their religion, even although their cult was repugnant to 
the interests of morality.2 The heathen religion was 
treated with the utmost respect by the cautious emperor. 
He accepted the title of Pontifex Maximus, which indeed 
was retained by his successors for nearly a century; and 
although he does not appear to have sacrificed to the 
gods at the time of his triumph, his medals even at a 
later period bear their images. In a.p. 314 he omitted 
the Ludi saeculaves, which ought to have been celebrated 
at Rome; and to the great indignation of the Romans, 
he refused to take part in the rites of Jupiter Capitolinus.*® 
But despite this partial withdrawal from heathen 
practices, the Arch of Constantine, erected in 315 to 


1. Neander, Hest. Church, vol. 111., pp. 17-18. Gaston Boissier, Fi 
du Paganisme, vol. 1., p. 49, on the Edict of Milan. 
2. Boissier says of the first rescript : ‘‘Nous ne savons quelles difficultés 


en rendirent l’exécution impossible. Quelques indices feraient croire qu’il — 


était concu dans des termes d’une généralité qu’il semblait sétendre a des 

sectes ennemis de toutes morales, et favoriser par la uae licence périlleuse.” 

op. ctt., vol. I,, p. 240. 5 
3. Robertson, Ast, Church, vol. 1., p. 258. 


SS ee yy 


CH. XL] EDICT OF MILAN. 233 


commemorate his triumphs, shews that he had not 
altogether broken with all pagan associations. Although 
the inscription says that the Senate and Roman people 
dedicated the arch, the language may be assumed to 
represent the feelings of the Emperor. His victory 
over the tyrant Maxentius is represented as achieved 
“instinctu divinitatis”. This ambiguous phrase may 
express either the divine nature of the ro év of Plato, 
or the power of that true God Whose worshippers the 
Emperor had begun to favour. Eusebius says that the 
figure of Constantine at Rome, erected by the Emperor 
himself, bore a spear in the form of a cross, and that 
the inscription attributed the victory of the Emperor 
to that saving sign. 
Constantine had summoned Licinius 
The Edict of to meet him, and the imperial conference 
A.D. 313. took place at Milan. This city, the capital 
of Maximian Herculius during his tenure 
of empire, would naturally be preferred by Constantine 
to Rome, where he was troubled by the claims of the 
Senate and the pagan proclivities of the majority of the 
inhabitants. Moreover, Milan was a city more suited to 
the promulgation of a new policy than Rome with her 
great traditions of the past. The immediate occasion 
of the interview was the marriage of Licinius to Con- 
stantine’s sister. The importance of this event in the 
eyes of the latter emperor was so great that the aged 
Diocletian was invited, but he refused to come. He was 
broken by ill-health, and by sorrow at the cruel treat- 
ment which his wife and daughter had received at the 
hands of Maximin Daza. On receipt of a brutal and 
insulting letter from Constantine he refused to touch food 
and died.” The text of the famous edict 1s somewhat 
obscure,® but its main provisions were, that each man 

1. Euseb., Vita Const. 1. 40. Sépv oravpod oxjuatt. 

2. Dr. Mason says in a foot-note, Persecution of Diocletian, p. 341: 
**Thisis Lactantius’ account. . . . . Eusebius knows nothing of the suicide. 
The Younger Victor (zt. xxxix. 8) places his death in the nearest 
relation to Constantine’s threatening letter, . . . . but he makes the mode 
poison. Eutropius has the same story word for word. .. . Zonaras (X11. 33) 
records a legend that he aimed at the Empire and was executed by order 
of the Senate.” 


3. An abridgement of this rescript is given by Lactantius, JZor¢. 
fersec., c. 48, and a Greek translation by Eusebius, #. Z. x. 5. 


234 LEGISLATION OF CONSTANTINE.  ([CH. x11. 


should have leave to worship in whatever way he 
thought fit, and that no one should be prevented from 
either practising or embracing the Christian Faith. 
It likewise provided that the property of the Christian 
corporation which had been confiscated during the 
persecution should be restored. 

Constantine’s victory over Maxentius 
pane et of was a turning point in the history of 
AD. 812-323: the Empire. The divided administration 

planned by Diocletian was doomed, and a 
reconstitution of the government was accompanied by 
great legislative activity. The favour which Constan- 
tine had shewn to the Christians makes us anxious to 
discover how far Christian influences were at work in 


shaping his administrative labours. In laws promul- © 


gated in a Christian state we may reasonably look for 
greater mercy towards criminals, and for a mitigation 
of the hardships suffered by the weak or helpless. On 
the other hand, the teachers of the Gospel are disposed 
to be less indulgent than heathen lawgivers to acts of 
impurity and kindred offences, which are ignored, or 
regarded as very trivial, by legislators imbued with the 
lax ideas of a pagan morality. Accordingly we shall 
seek for the influence of Christianity in Constantine’s 
legislation when it affects (1) Criminals and debtors, 
(2) Slaves, (3) Children, (4) Marriage; and to these we 
may add (5) The Christian Church. 

As early as a.D. 314 Constantine 


Qt) Seri forbade the infliction of capital punish- 


ment upon any person, unless he either 


confessed his crime, or the testimony of his accusers 
was unanimous. It was forbidden to brand slaves and 
criminals on the face, because it is the image of the 
heavenly beauty. Debtors to the fiscus were not to be 
punished by scourging, but to be kept in free custody; 


nor were accused persons to be imprisoned in dungeons — 


without light, nor to be unnecessarily loaded with 
chains. The acta in criminal cases were to be shewn to 
the defendant and his advisers, as in civil actions. In 
addition to this, in criminal cases all men were to be 
tried by the magistrate of the province, because crime 
¢ffaces all distinctions of rank. 


CH. XII.) SLAVES. CHILDREN. 285 


; Slavery, with the exception of war 
(2) Slaves; has been ie evil most difficult to eradi- 
cate from the world; but though the primitive Church did 
not openly denounce this practice, the tendency of the 
Christian religion has ever been in favour of personal 
liberty. Nor may we overlook the fact that there had 
been a certain advance in humanity even during the 
time in which the Roman empire was still heathen. 
The brutal maxims of Cato the Censor in regard to 
slaves had long ceased to be popular. ‘Tacitus speaks 
of the public indignation caused by the execution of 
the four hundred slaves of Pedanius Secundus as early as 
A.D. 61; and Seneca in one passage uses language in 
regard to slaves which greatly resembles that of St. Paul.? 
Crucifixion and the breaking the legs was abolished 
apparently in 315. In the following year Constantine 
allowed slaves to be liberated in Christian churches. 
In 334 a most beneficial law forbade the families of 
slaves to be divided when estates changed hands. 
(3) Children ; In most heathen countries the un- 
* natural custom of exposing children, whose 
parents are either too poor or too selfish to maintain 
them, meets with no public reprobation, and is exten- 
sively practised. In the Roman world the practice had 
become fearfully common ;° and from the first, Christian 
compassion had taken the children thus cruelly aban- 
doned under special protection. Constantine’s legis- 
lation sought to remedy this evil, a sure proof that the 
Church had made her influence felt in his policy. In 
315 a law, due partly no doubt also to the alarming 
decrease of the population of the Empire, was issued 
from Naissus in Dardania, ordering that those children 
whose parents were too poor to support them should be 
maintained at the expense of the fiscus. In 322 the 
public distress caused a law of more questionable wisdom 
to be promulgated; the sale of children, which had been 
forbidden by Diocletian, was legalised, and children 
who had been exposed by their parents and rescued by 
a compassionate stranger, could not be claimed from 


1. Tacitus, du. XIV. 42. | 
2. Seneca, de Beneficits. 1 Tim, vi. 2, Alford’s note. 
3. Tert., Afol.,c. 9. Gibbon, Decline and Fall, chap. xiv. 


286 MARRIAGE, THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. [cH, xIL 


their preserver. Exposing children was not punishable 
till the time of Valentinian, a.p. 374. 
The Christian religion of this period 
(*) Marriage and regarded marriage in a two-fold light. 
sexes ; On the one hand it exalted it to its true 
position of a sacred and perpetual union © 
between man and woman; on the other, it lowered the 
institution by preferring chaste celibacy to marriage. 
Constantine recognised both these Christian tendencies. 
He removed the liabilities attaching to celibate life 
by the ancient law, by freeing unmarried and childless 
persons from the taxes laid specially upon them.! This, 
we are told, was a change very acceptable to the 
Christians. In regard to the sanctity of marriage, he 
sought to put an end to the sin of incontinence by laws 
which reflect more credit on his zeal for purity than on 
his legislative wisdom or his humanity. A servant 
who had been party to seduction was to have boiling 
lead poured down her throat. Both the guilty parties 
were to be punished with death. 
It was Constantine’s aim to make the 
(©) The Christian Church a privileged body, and his legis- 
lation shews that his policy was to make 
the clergy gradually take the place of the heathen 
priesthood as a distinct order in the State. In dealing 
with the Church his object was gradually to transfer to 
Christianity from heathenism all that had hitherto made 
it attractive in the eyes of the people. The Church 
was made a corporation capable of receiving legacies,? 
and the clergy were exempted from the office of decuvion, 
a public position which at one time had been con- 
sidered an honour, but which, by reason of the holder’s 
penal liability to the government for the taxes of his 
district, had become an odious and burthensome public 
duty.2 This was as early as 313, and two years later the 
lands of the clergy were apparently exempted from 


1. Euseb., Vita Const. iv. 26, 28. 
2. Codex Theod., XVIII., laws 1, 2, 3. De Broglie, vol. I., p. 307. 


3. See Guizot, Histoire de la Civilisation en France, Lect. 1. For 
a discussion of the curvales, &c., see Bigg, Church's Task, Excursus 
on Lect. ‘Iv. 


CH. XII.) LEGISLATION OF CONSTANTINE. 287 


taxation. In 321 the first day of the week (dies vene- 
vabilis solis) was ordered to be kept as a holiday and 
day of rest,? thus giving the day honoured by the Church 
a public recognition. But the effect of imperial favour 
was not wholly salutary. The hope of pleasing the 
Emperor and the desire of sharing in the privileges he 
had granted to the Christians induced many impostors 
to seek admission into the pale of the Church, whilst 
the exemption from the decurionate made several men 
of curial rank join the clergy for the purpose of evading 
the duties of that troublesome office. Constantine did 
not deprive the clergy of their privilege directly: but 
in providing against its abuse he dealt the Church a 
severe blow, by preventing anyone belonging to the 
cuviales from taking holy orders. Thus the influence 
of wealth and education was arbitrarily withdrawn 
from the clerical order. The number of priests was 
also limited by statute, and they were to be chosen 
from the poor, “because the rich must contribute to 
the necessities of the age, and the poor should be 
nourished by the wealth of the Church.’ 
aes; ?; The most noticeable feature in the 
Christian advisers Jegislation of Constantine is the strong 
A.D. 312—323. stamp of the personal influence of the 
Emperor which it bears. Constantine is 
remarkable for having promulgated an almost entirely 
new constitution, in which nearly every relation of 
human society was altered, without meeting with any 
serious opposition. That he was not resisted by heathen 
subjects, among whom passive obedience to the will of 
the ruler had become almost a second nature, is less 
wonderful than that the Christian Church, which had 
fought and conquered in the death struggle with the 
persecuting emperors, should calmly submit to his 
decrees. We may account for this by the fact that the 


1. Robertson (Azst. of the Chr. Ch. 1. p. 258-9) quotes the 
Theodosian Code, X1l., tit. 1. 

2. Euseb., Vita Const. Iv. 18. Codex Justin, X11. 3. Eusebius 
perhaps, and Sozomen expressly (1. 8), say that Friday was also to be 
observed, but nothing of this is found in the laws of the Theodosian Code. 

3. See Broglie, vol. 1., p. 307. Codex Theod. xVI., tit. 2, laws 3 
and 6. 


288 HOSIUS OF CORDOVA. | [CH. XII. 


Church from the death of St. Cyprian to the rise of 
St. Athanasius had produced comparatively few men of 
commanding abilities... The notable exception to this 
rule is Hosius of Cordova. Notwithstanding his having 
in extreme old age signed the heretical creed of Sirmium, 
Hosius seems to have been a man of much sanctity and 
capacity, which gave him great. influence with the 
Emperor. He was certainly with Constantinein A.D. 313, 
as his name is mentioned in the latter’s epistle to 
Caecilianus of Carthage.2 He was not present at the 
Council of Arles, a.p. 314, being presumably with the 
Emperor, who was on a campaign against Licinius in 
Pannonia. In 316 he was evidently with Constantine, 
for when the Donatists were condemned in that year 
they spread abroad a most unfair report that the severity 
of the Emperor was due to the influence of Hosius. In 
A.D. 321 Hosius is addressed in the law permitting slaves 
to be liberated in the presence of the clergy.’ It may 
be added that Lactantius, in his position as tutor to 
Crispus, was often about the Emperor’s person, and to 
the influence of this writer’s Christian Institutes parts 
of Constantine’s legislation may be due, especially his 
unsuccessful attempts to suppress the gladiatorial games. 


The Christianity of the African 

Aion bad the Church was from fie first distinguished 

schiem of the by a fervour apparently peculiar to the 

’ inhabitants of the ancient Phoenician 

colony of Carthage. The terrible energy of the affection 
which Virgil depicts in Dido, and the stern fixity of 
purpose which made Hannibal so formidable an enemy 
of the Roman people, reappear in the new Carthage 
which rose to opulence under the Roman empire. The 
fiery and uncompromising fanaticism of Tertullian 
found in the austere sect of the Montanists a more 
congenial home than in the wider bosom of the Catholic 
Church. In the severely orthodox Cyprian, who ruled — 
the church on sternest hierarchical principles, and 


1. I owe this idea to the exhaustive article on ‘ Constantine’ in the 
Dict. of Christian Biography. 

2. Euseb., H. &. x. 6. 

3. Mr. Dale, in his essay on the Council of Elvira, makes some 
suggestive remarks about the life of Hosius. 


CH. xI.] DISPUTES FOLLOWING PERSECUTION. 289 


indignantly repudiated the Roman bishop Stephen's 
charitable view of heretical baptism, we detect similar 
traits of character. Great and holy as St. Augustine 
was, it is a noteworthy fact that the more unamiable 
of the Reformers found his works strangely attractive, 
and the gloomiest of modern theological doctrines is 
due to his teaching on the mysterious subject of 
predestination. Is it fanciful to trace in the Spanish 
temperament of the middle ages a continuation of the 
splendid heroism, the intense devotion, and the gloomy 
fanatical spirit of the Africans of antiquity? Can we 
not fancy Tertullian under different circumstances a 
Torquemada, and Cyprian combining the wisdom and 
the ruthless vandalism of Cardinal Ximenes?+ We 
should naturally expect a church animated by so fiery 
a spirit of devotion to behave with heroism in times of 
persecution, and to be distracted by the most bitter 
intestine discords when a cessation of trials from 
without gave an opportunity for strife to break out 
within. 
Accordingly we find that a persecution 
tes cea in Africa was usually followed by a bitter 
perplexed by dispute as to whether those who had 
cen shewn weakness and had sacrificed to idols 
Church? Should be re-admitted to the Church. The 
more austere party desired not only that 
those who had sacrificed and denied Christ should be 
excluded, but that all who had in any way saved 
themselves, even by an apparent compliance with the 
demands of the heathen rulers, should be deemed un- 
worthy of continuing in the Church. The furious 
controversies in the church of Carthage during 
Cyprian’s administration turned on this point, and 
Diocletian’s persecution was destined to be followed 
by a schism resulting in the utter ruin of Christianity 
in the province of Africa. The real question at issue 
was whether the Church of Christ ought to consist 
only of those who had done justice to their Christian 
profession, or whether she ought to admit the weak, 


1. He destroyed thousands of Arabic books of priceless value. 
Prescott, Ferdinand and Jsabella, vol. 11., p. 369. 
7: 


290 RESCRIPTS TO ANULINUS.~  ___[cu. xn. 


the erring, and the ignorant, in the hope of elevating 
them by her teaching and discipline. , 
: The church of Carthage had suffered 
addeeeeentine i¢ most severely under Maximian and Max- 
tothe African entius. It is probable also that the 
Church directly Christians were more numerous and in- 
after his conver- fl . . . : a 
gion, and finds fluential in this province than ‘in any 
that thereisa other. part of Constantine’s dominions. 
feel ae on Accordingly his good will towards the 
Carthage. | Christian religion was displayed almost 
immediately in a letter to Caecilian, 
bishop of Carthage, and two rescripts to Anulinus, 
under whose administration the persecution had pre- 
viously raged! The officer was now commanded to 
restore the property of the church and to exempt 
Christian clergymen from the public burdens. Caecilian 
was informed that an imperial grant of three thousand 
folles of wheat had been made to the African, Numi- 
dian, and Mauritanian churches. At the end of the 
letter Constantine hints that he knew of disturbances 
in the church, but he had formed no adequate idea 
of their seriousness. The reply of Anulinus informed 
him that a very influential party were opposed to 
Caecilian and had petitioned him to send a portfolio 
containing accusations against that bishop. ‘The sig- 
natories of the petition begged the Emperor that the 
question might be settled by the bishops of Gaul.* 
To understand the reason for this 
opposition to Caecilian it is necessary to 
go back to the days of the persecution. 
Mensurius, bishop of Carthage, had decided that his 
duty was to discourage any attempt to exasperate the 
government against the Church. ‘To prevent any of his 
flock from blindly seeking the honours of martyrdom, he 
set his face against the practice of crowds of admirers 


Cause of the 
Dispute. 


1. Milman, Hest. Christiantty, vol, U., p. 299. See Mason, Persec. 
Diocletian, p. 154 ff. 

2. Broglie, vol. I., p.254. Euseb., H. £. x. 6: xai érecdy érvOdunp, 
rivas uh KadeoTwons Siavolas Tuyxdvorras avOpwrous, Tov Kady Tis ayiwrdrns 
Kal xaOodcxhs éxxAnolas patrAy Tit tbrovodetce BovrhecOar dtacrpéper, 
ywwoKé we "Avurlyp. .. Toravras évrodas dedwxévat . . . K.T.A. 

3. Broglie, vol. 1., p. 260. For documentary evidence in the Donatist 
controversy, see Dupin’s edition of Optatus of Milevis. Aug., Epp., 63, § 2. 


a 


CH. xI.]. UNPOPULARITY OF CAECILIAN. 291 


visiting the Christian confessors in prison, and forbade 
his flock to honour those who had drawn persecution 
upon themselves by proclaiming that they had copies 
of the Scriptures. In pursuing this line of action 
Mensurius was only following St. Cyprian,! and his 
own good sense shewed him that many of these ostenta- 
tious confessors of Christ were men in trouble with 
their creditors or in difficulties with the police, and 
that they were really making a profit out of their 
sufferings.? But good sense is seldom popular among 
zealots, and the more fiery party of the African Church 
charged Mensurius with being himself a traditor of the 
sacred Scriptures committed to his care.2 But the un- 
popularity of Mensurius was small compared with that 
of his archdeacon, Caecilian. His cruelty was depicted 
by the zealots in vivid colours. The archdeacon, it was 
said, evinced his hatred of the martyrs by standing at 
the doors of the prison with attendants armed with 
leathern thongs in order to drive away those who 
approached with food or drink. Many of the martyrs, 
it was alleged, died of starvation, whilst the dogs 
devoured the food which piety had brought for their 
support. A dreadful picture was drawn by the Donatists, 
in after days, of the brutal Caecilian standing at the 
prison door unmoved by the shrieks and tears of the 
parents and relatives and friends of the confessors, who 
were prevented by him from approaching their loved 
ones for the purpose of bidding them a last farewell.+ 
Of course such charges, being of a kind frequently made 
by partisans, were entirely false, nor do they seem to 
have hurt Caecilian in the eyes of pious and reasonable 
men, for on the death of Mensurius in A.D. 311 he was 
chosen bishop of Carthage. He was consecrated by 
Felix, bishop of Aptunga. As might have been expected, 
a strong party in Carthage was found to be opposed to 
Caecilian, as sixty years before Novatus and his faction 
had opposed the election of Cyprian. A wealthy woman 

1. Cyprian, Z/. 5. 

2. Mason, Persecution of Diocletian, p. 169. 

3. The charges against Mensurius are to be found in Augustine, 
Brevic. coll. cum Don. i. 13. 

4. See the Passion of the Albitinian Martyrs in Dupin, Oftatus of 
Milevis, p. iv. 

ba 


292 CABAL AGAINST CAECILIAN, _ [CH. XIL 


was the chief supporter of the malcontents. Lucilla, a 
Spanish lady of noble birth, who had a high reputation 
for piety, had been greatly offended by Caecilian’s 
having forbidden her to worship the relics of a martyr 
not, apparently, recognised by the Church.' She re- 
venged herself on him by entertaining a commission 
sent by Secundus, bishop of Tigisis and Primate of 
Numidia, at her house. The commission, though nomin- 
ally intended to promote peace, planned in concert with 
Lucilla the best means of overthrowing Caecilian. 
Secundus, with seventy bishops from Numidia, soon 
arrived at Carthage. A meeting was held in a private 
house, at which Caecilian was deposed on the ground 
that he had been consecrated by Felix of Aptunga, who 
was declared to have been a traditor during the perse- 
cution.?, Majorinus a reader, a friend of Lucilla, was 
consecrated bishop, and for a short time the faction 
opposed to Caecilian was called the party of Majorinus. 
As, however, Majorinus soon died, the schismatics 
received the name Donatists, either from their leader 
Donatus, bishop of Casae Nigrae, or from his more 
famous name-sake, the successor of Majorinus in the 
see of Carthage. Such then were the trifling causes of 
a schism which rent the Church of Africa in twain, and 
which was prolonged with a bitterness remarkable even 
in ecclesiastical disputes. 3 
Constantine, finding that the dispute 

Constantine’s jin the Church of Africa could not easily 
policy towards be adjusted, decided that the case of 
Caecilian should receive the attention of 

the bishops of Italy and Gaul. Accordingly he caused 
three Gallican bishops, Maternus of Cologne, Reticius of 


1. Hefele, istory of the Counctls, vol. 1., p. 175 (Eng. Trans.) 
Optatus’ words are: ‘‘ Lucillam scilicet nescioquam muliebrem factiosam... 
cum correptionem archidiaconi Caeciliani ferre non posset, quae ante spirie 
talem cibum et potum os nescio cujus martyris, si tamen martyris, libare 
dicebatur.”” Was it her superstition that was rebuked by Caecilian, or the 
adoration of the bone of one of those whose death Caecilian and Mensurius 
did not regard as a martyrdom? 

2. The absurdity of the proceedings of this synod is shewn by the facts 
(a) that Felix was afterwards proved not to have been a ¢raditor, (6) that 
Secundus had admitted at the Synod of Cirta that he had himself given up 
the sacred Scriptures. Hefele, of. c#¢., p. 128. 


CH. XII. ] | SYNOD OF ARLES. 293 


Autun, and Marinus of Arles, with fifteen Italian bishops, 
to form a sort of commission (A.D. 313) under Pope 
Miltiades or Melchiades to hear both parties at Rome.! 
Caecilian appeared with ten bishops of his party, and 
his accuser, Donatus of Casae Nigrae, with a like 
number. The innocence of Caecilian was established, 
and Miltiades, who had shewn great fairness and 
moderation throughout, sent two bishops to Africa to 
proclaim the fact that Caecilian’s was the Catholic 
party. The Donatists now declared that they had been 
unfairly heard, and that Caecilian was no bishop 
because he had been ordained by Felix of Aptunga, 
who was tpso facto excommunicate as a traditor. 
Here again they were foiled, for the question, by order 
of the Emperor, was investigated by the proconsul 
Aelian, and it was conclusively proved that Felix had 
not surrendered the Scriptures. Still the schismatics 
were not satisfied; and Constantine, who shewed un- 

wearied patience in dealing with them, 
Synod of tiles. ordered the bishops of the Western Church 

to assemble at Arles. Thirty-three bishops 
were present, among them three from Britain, Eborius 
of York, Restitutus from London, and Adelphius, or 
Adelfius, ‘de civitate Coloniae Londinensium’, together 
with a presbyter named Sacerdos, and Arminius a 
deacon.? Marinus of Arles apparently presided over this 
synod, which acquitted Caecilian, remarking in a letter 
on the subject to Silvester, the successor of Miltiades, 
that it was fortunate for his accusers that the Pope had 
not been present, or the sentence would certainly have 
been more severe.’ In the year following the Council of 
Arles, Donatus the Great succeeded the insignificant 
Majorinus as the representative of the faction in the see 


1. Euseb,, HW. #. x. 5. With Miltiades is associated Marcus. 
Tillemont considers that he was St. Miroclus, bishop of Milan. He may 
also have been an important presbyter in the Roman church. Broglie, 
op. cit., vol. I., p. 263. 

2. Bright (Zarly English Church History) considers that Adelfius 
was bishop of Caerleon on Usk. The number of bishops is given as 
thirty-three because of the signatures: but probably many more were 
present. Firth, Constantine the Great, p. 175. 


3. Hefele, of. czt., p. 183. 


294 THE CIRCUMCELLIONES, — (CH. X11. 


of Carthage, and the separatists had now the advantage | 

of a really able and energetic leader. | 
Pl) BST, For three years Constantine had avoided 
pronounces Pronouncing any decision in the matter 
against of the African schism. Caecilian was © 
Re eee detained in Italy after the Synod of 
OTTER Rome, and again in 315, whilst Con- 
stantine was endeavouring to evade having to exercise 
his personal authority in a purely ecclesiastical matter. 
At last, however, the Emperor was compelled to act, 
and on Nov. 14, 316, Caecilian was declared innocent in 

an imperial letter written from Milan. 
; The sentence was necessarily attended 
Donatism b . 

becomesadise Dy executive measures to suppress the 
- affected party. schism, and the Donatists were now 
liable to punishment if they persisted. 
Ursacius was ordered to deprive them of 
their churches. Many who withstood this mandate 
lost their lives. But Constantine’s treatment of the 
Donatists can hardly be called a religious persecution. 
They had themselves appealed to the imperial decision, 
and after their case had been most carefully investigated 
both by churchmen appointed by Constantine and by 
the officers of the government, their charges against 
Caecilian were dismissed. Even their plea that he was — 
no bishop was shewn to be valueless by their inability 
to convict Felix of Aptunga of the offence of being a 
traditor, Nor were they persecuted because of their 
religious opinions, but for disobedience to the decision 
of the imperial tribunal to which they themselves had 
appealed. The action of the government roused the 
Donatists to fury. There was already in Africa a 
fanatical body of men who wandered about among 
the huts of the peasants to excite their passions and 
inflame their zeal. They were known to the world as 
Circumcelliones, but styled themselves Agonistae, or 
Christian champions. During the Donatist troubles 
these men gathered together a vast number of dis- 
contented persons, proclaiming a species of communism, 
and wandering about the country with heavy clubs, called 


he 
Circumcelliones. 


1. Broglie, L’Eglise et TEmpire, p. 295. 


_ CH. x11.] CONSTANTINE AND LICINIUS. 295 


‘Israels’, which they used instead of swords, because 
our Lord had commanded St. Peter, “Put up thy sword.” 
Africa in the fourth century became distracted by these 
formidable representatives of the worst form of fana- 
ticism. ‘They defeated imperial armies, and the Count 
Ursacius, the persecutor of the Donatists, was slain 
in an engagement with them. Life became a terror in 
the country districts, and St. Augustine tells us that the 
war-cry of the Circumcellions ‘ Praise be to God!’ was 
more feared than the roar of a lion. The most extraordi- 
nary zeal for martyrdom was shewn by these sectaries, 
who often slew each other when their enemies refused to 
put them to death. 

In 317 Constantine wrote to the bishops of North 
Africa urging them to forbear as far as possible from 
retaliating the injuries they had received at the hands 
of the Circumcellions. In 321 he granted the Donatists 
liberty to act according to their own consciences. The 
government did not attempt again to interfere till the 
reign of Constans, 338, and Donatism continued to 
increase in influence throughout Africa till the days of 
St. Augustine. This vitality can only be accounted for 
by supposing that, despite the glaring inconsistency of the 
leaders of the schism (many of whom were themselves 
tvaditores) in appealing to the secular power, there was 
a strong party in the Church of Africa opposed on 
principle to any concordat with the State. The Donatist’s 
exclamation ‘What has the Emperor to do with the 
Church?’ was probably a genuine complaint on the 
part of many adherents of the sect. 

Like Constantine, his brother-in-law 
Licinius had overthrown his rival Maximin 
in 313, and the Roman empire remained 
divided between the twoconquerors. But a struggle for 
supremacy was inevitable, though the issue of a contest 
between two such generals was too doubtful to allow 
either to precipitate a war. In the first campaign of 
314 Licinius was defeated, but not crushed, at Cibalis, 
and Constantine won a doubtful victory at Mardia. A 
fresh partition, of the Empire was made, Constantine 
added Illyricum, Macedonia, Dardania, Greece, and part 
of Moesia to his dominions. Nearly ten years’ peace 


Constantine and 
Licinius. 


296 DEATH OF LICINIUS, _—[cu. xm. 


followed, but the inevitable breach between the two 
emperors came at last, and this time Licinius appeared 
as the champion of Paganism.! The war of 323 was so 
far a religious one.? The cause of Christianity was 
triumphant throughout. Defeated with great loss at 
Adrianople, Licinius retreated to Byzantium. Crispus, 
the son of Constantine, forced the passage of the 
Hellespont and destroyed the hostile fleet, and Licinius’ 
hastily-raised Bithynian army sustained a total over- 
throw at Scutari (Chrysopolis) in Bithynia, near 
Byzantium. Shortly afterwards the heathen emperor 
tendered a grovelling submission at Nicomedia. Though 
spared, ostensibly in deference to the entreaties of 
Constantia, the jealousy of his conqueror could not 
suffer Licinius to live. His confinement at Thessalonica 
Was soon succeeded by accusations of conspiracy and 
an informal execution.® 


1. There were even martyrs under Licinius: Hefele mentions Basil, 
bishop of Amasia, H/7zst. of the Councils, vol. 1., p. 199. Euseb., Vita 
Const. U1. 1. 

2. Euseb., Vita Comst. 11. 4. 

3. St. Jerome (Chron. 2339) says ‘contra jus gentium’. The more 
courtly Eusebius (Vzta Const. 11. 18) says ‘Then Constantine handed 
over the hated of God by the law of war to the punishment he deserved.’ 


CHAPTER XIII. 


ARIANISM AND THE COUNCIL OF NICAEA. 


Tue defeat of Licinius left Constantine master of 
the Roman world, and face to face with an embarrass- 
ment compared to which all his previous ecclesiastical 
difficulties must have seemed trifling. Arianism, be- 
ginning ciy. 318 at Alexandria as a cloud no bigger 
than a man’s hand, was already increasing with por- 
tentous speed and was shortly to darken the whole 
Christian horizon. The bishop of Alexandria had had 
a dispute with one of his presbyters on a purely 
speculative question; mutual accusations of heresy 
had been followed by the excommunication of the pre- 
sumptuous priest. The subject was one which none 
but men trained in dialectic subtleties could possibly 
comprehend, and which to the uneducated seemed to 
turn on mere hair-splitting definitions. Yet the result 
was to set house against house and family against 
family, to fill cities with confusion and the whole 
empire with disorder, to arouse the most furious 
passions and to make men at enmity with one another on 
questions which not one in a thousand could understand. 
The excitement caused by the Arian disputes seems to 
us almost incredible, until we realise how much religious 
questions occupied the mind of mankind in the fourth 
century. The legislation of Constantine shews that 
the government was able to exercise the most despotic 
power, to enforce a system of enormous taxation, and 
to regulate almost every action of the lives of its 
subjects. But, to the Christian Church Constantine 
found it necessary to accord almost complete inde- 
pendence. In her the liberty and loyalty, which had 


a: 


298 ARIUS AND ALEXANDER. _ [cu. xi, 


deserted the Roman world, had taken up a new abode. 
Her leaders bore on their bodies the marks of the Lord 
Jesus as signs of their constancy in the late persecution, 
and had proved that neither force nor persuasion could 
influence them or their followers to yield a point when 
the Faith was at stake. The question which had been 
raised divided the Christian world into two parties, 
and everyone considered himself bound by his religious 
loyalty to range himself on one side or the other. 
Our account of the development of the 
Aleeannee takes science of theology in the second and third 
of Alexandria, of Centuries has already brought us to the 
Sabellianism. threshold of the Arian position. We have 
seen how difficult it was to avoid the 
Sabellian error of confusing the Son with the Father 
and at the same time to maintain the doctrine of His 


distinct hypostasis without dissolving the Unity of God. 


Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, in a charge to his 
clergy insisted strongly on the unity in the Trinity, 
and made use of expressions perilously near to the 
language of the dreaded heresy of Sabellius. He thought, 
as Socrates informs us,! that he was gaining honour 
by his argument; but one of his listeners was on the 
watch to catch any error in doctrine that might fall 
from the bishop. This was Arius, a presbyter of 


Baucalis, a suburb of Alexandria. ‘The great heresiarch 


was a tall, grave, ascetic man, whose solemn face and 
severe manner had made him much respected, especially 
by the fairer portion of the community. He had been a 
disciple of the martyr Lucian,? and added to a character 
for piety a reputation for learning and ability.2 His 
chief failing seems to have been an overweening vanity, 


I. idoriudrepov rept rhs aylas rpiddos év rprads wovdda elvar piiocopar 

éOeoddyer. Socrates, H. £. 1,5. Hefele, Azst. of the Councils, vol. 1., 
. 243. 

. 2. Lucian was, like Paulus, a native of Samosata. He was the head 
of a critical, exegetical and theological school at Antioch. Domnus, who was 
bishop after the deposition of Paulus, appears to have suspended him from 
his functions. He was however reconciled to the Church, and died a 
martyr at Nicomedia, January 7, 312. His pupils were greatly attached to 
him and to one another. Prolegomena to Athanasius, (Nicene and Post- 
Nicene Fathers,) p. xxviii. 

3. Dorner, Doctrine of the Person of Christ, Div. 1., part I1., p. 231. 


TG 

Sauk = Fs 

A o 
1 


hehe es ee SS oS ee. le oS 


CH. xu] DOCTRINE OF ARIUS. 299 


which no doubt prompted him to offer a popular 
solution of a doctrine which had remained impene- 
trable even to the minds of Clement and Origen. 


(1) Starting from the essentially pagan 
conception of God as a Being absolutely 
apart from His creation, Arius could not conceive of a 
mediator being other than a created being, and found 
that between the Father and the Son there was the 
impassable gulf which according to his theory must 
separate the unbegotten, or uncreated, from that which 
is begotten, or created. The Father was therefore 
essentially isolated from the Son. (2) The creation of 
the Son as a second God Arius proceeded to explain by the 
logical method he had learned in the school of Lucian, 
and urged that He must bea finite Being. (3) Therefore the 
Son had no existence before He was begotten. Although 
He was created before the universe and before all time, 
there was ‘once’ (woré)—Arius avoided the use of the 
word ‘ time’—when He was not. (4) Assuming that the 
Son was a creature, and could not therefore be of the 
same substance as the uncreated God, Arius proceeds to 
declare that He was made out of nothing (€& ov« évTwv) ; 


System of Arius. 


(5) and he argues that the Son, being of a different essence 


(ovcia) to the Father, can only be called God in a lower 
and improper sense. (6) As a creature, this pre-existent 
Christ was lable to change, and even capable of sin; 
nothing, as a matter of fact, keeping Him sinless but 
His own virtue.! 

What appears to us most repulsive 
in the scheme of Arius was in the fourth 
century its great attraction. To our 
minds there is something almost revolting in the way 
in which Arius thus coldly applies a shallow system 
of reasoning to the explanation of so profound a mystery 
as the relation of the Supreme Being to the Redeemer, 
We see no attractiveness in the theory which keeps 
God and man for ever apart, and we are unable to 
realise the idea of a Christ who is neither God nor 


Attractiveness of 
Arianism. 


1, Harnack, A7st. Dogma, vol. 1v., Eng. Trans. See my article on 
Arianism in Hastings’ Dict. of Religion and Ethics, vol. 1. 


300 POPULARITY OF ARIANISM. (CH. XII. _ 


true man.’ It was quite otherwise in the fourth 
century, especially when after the edict of Milan the 
heathen were crowding into the Church, bringing many 
of their old habits of thought with them, and being 
more anxious to win the favour of the Emperor by 
professing Christianity, than to acquire the true doctrines 
of the now privileged religion.2 Arius in the popular 
judgment had simplified the Faith and brought 
Christian doctrine into accord with the generally 
accepted notions of the time. For the great attraction 
of Christianity for the men of the third and fourth 
centuries was, not its doctrines of Atonement and 
Redemption, but its Monotheism. The Faith had given 
life and reality to the unity of God, which even heathen 
philosophy had pronounced to be a necessary belief. 
Nor had the Christian teachers been less influenced by - 
Neo-Platonism than that philosophy by Christianity. 
The Church teachers of the fourth century very fre- 
quently appeal to Philo, to Porphyry, to Plotinus, and 
other Neo-Platonists, in their belief that they could 
find in their writings the Christian conception of God. 
Certainly the Neo-Platonists had constructed a kind of 
doctrine of the Trinity. The Father was here the 
év, the aitsov. This use of the term dv may have been 
the ultimate foundation of the subordinationism, from 
which the Eastern Church found such difficulty in 
freeing itself. In isolating God from the world Arius 
both satisfied the desire for Monotheism, and conformed 
to the prejudice which feared to unspiritualise the idea 
of God by bringing Him into contact with creation. 
At the same time he opposed the Sabellian heresy by 
giving the Son a distinct hypostasis.4 The heresiarch 
appears in addition to have possessed the abilities 
necessary for a successful demagogue. He appealed to 
the populace by writing verses in the style of a licentious 


1. Dorner, of. ctt., p. 240. Gwatkin, Studies of Arianism, pp. 25, 26. 
Mr. Gwatkin thinks that Arius, like his followers at a later date, denied the 
humanity of our Lord. ‘*It was simpler for Arius to unite the Logos to a 
human body, and to sacrifice the last relics of the original defence of our 
Lord’s true manhood.” 

2. Dorner, of. ctt., p. 202. 

3. Dorner, of. c27., p. 204. 

4. Gwatkin, p. 27. 


cH. x111.] ARIANISM A DANGEROUS HERESY. 301 


Egyptian poet, Sotades, in which his doctrines were 
stated in a form easy to be remembered.’ We are told 
that the Alexandrian mechanics sang the songs of Arius 
about the Trinity at their work and in the streets. 
Support of a more respectable character was accorded 
by the Syrian bishops, of whom the most learned was 
the historian Eusebius of Caesarea. A footing in the 
imperial palace itself was secured by the adhesion of 
the other Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia, the spiritual 
adviser of the empress Constantia, wife of Licinius 
and sister of Constantine. 


fey! The tediousness of the Arian con- 
Sai troversy, with its tangled intrigues and 
Christianity. hair-splitting definitions, has sometimes 
hid from the modern historian the real 

importance of the issue. But the Fathers of the fourth 
century were not engaged in a mere dispute about 
words. ‘The principles of Arianism were a serious 
menace to the well-being of Christianity, and the 
practical services of Ulfilas? the Gothic missionary, and 
other excellent men of this school, must not divert our 
attention from the gravity of their error. If Godisa 
mere abstraction—the Platonic év—a Being separated 
-by an impassable gulf from the world, how can He 
be described as loving man, or how can man’s love be 
directed to Him? If Christ is a created being, essen- 
tially different from God, His manifestation only reveals 
new gradations of being between the human and the 
divine, nor can it fulfil the purpose of bringing men 
nearer to God. And if Christ is not indeed God, we 
cannot offer Him the worship due to God alone. If, 
moreover, the Logos merely used the human body as 
a means Of communicating with the world, mankind 
cannot turn to Him as to one who bore our human 
nature. Granted that many of the followers of Arius 
were Christians of the highest type, the logic they had 
used to prove the relation of the Son to the Father 
really led back step by step to the Pagan doctrine of 


1. Hefele, History of the Counctls, vol. 1., p. 256. Socrates, H.£. 
1.9. Athanasius, De Synodis, 11. § 15. 


2. For Ulfilas, see C. A. Scott, Udilas, Apostle of the Goths. 


302 ARIANISM HARD TO REFUTE,  [CH. XIII, 


an unknown and unknowable God, and to the worship 
of a demi-god.! 

4 In truth this system was, as Dorner points 

eee adiie out, unsound in that which was regarded 
tenable. as its strongest point. It was illogical. 
In isolating God from the world, Arius 
is logically conducted to the Epicurean doctrine that 
creation is the result of chance. This Arius does not 
dare to face; he accordingly gives this chance a seat in 
the will of God. Yet this will is actuated by caprice, 
for to what other motive can we assign the creation of 
the Logos as creator of the world by a God who is 
essentially divided from both? Again, when he repre- 
sents the Father as entirely unknowable, and teaches 
that this attribute is necessary to His exalted nature, 
he remains confronted by the dilemma: If man cannot 
know God, and if the Son cannot reveal the Father to 
us, how can we know that He cannot be known ?? 
Notwithstanding its unscriptural and 
grey ry vault, illogical character, no heresy was harder 
to refute. tO refute than that of Arius. The sub- 
ordination of the Son had, as we have 
seen, been taught by such honoured teachers as Origen 
and the Alexandrian Dionysius; and more recently, 
Lucian of Antioch, celebrated as a scholar no less than 
a martyr, had taught a similar doctrine. It seemed only 
a step from the teaching of these divines to that of 
Arius, for though they may be honourably acquitted of 
heresy, their language appeared at times to countenance 
his conclusions. Moreover the Arians were quite willing 

1. Illingworth, Reason and Revelation, chap. vii. Gwatkin, Arians, 
p. 21 sq. See the second Discourse of Athanasius Against the Arians, 
ch. xvi., where Prov. viii. 22 is discussed, and the argument is adduced 
that the worship which man is permitted to pay to Christ is a proof of His 
divinity. In the third discourse, ch. xxv. § 15, the same writer asks the 
Arians ‘* Why they do not rank themselves with the Gentiles, .. . for they 
too worship the creature....” ‘* Arianism” says Dr. Harnack ‘‘is a 
new doctrine in the Church; it labours under quite as many difficulties as 
any other earlier Christological doctrine; it is finally, in one important 
respect, merely Hellenism which is simply tempered by the constant use of 
Holy Scripture.”—-Aistory of Dogma, vol. IV., p. 41. 

2. Dorner, of. cét., p. 239. ‘‘ The Arian Christology is inwardly the 
most unstable, and dogmatically the most worthless, of all the Christologies 
to be met with in the history of dogma.” Schultz, Gotthed? Christe, p. 65, 
quoted by Harnack. 


mtn 


CH, XIII. ] THE JHALIA OF ARIUS. 303 


to accept the strongest phrases used in the Scriptures on 
the subject of our Lord’s divinity. They were prepared 
to admit that He was in the image of God, and the 
first-born (mpwrtotoxos) of all creation. Provided they 
might teach that the Saviour’s being was independent 
of that of the Father, they cared not what honour was 
paid to Him or what language was used in His praise, 
as it was always possible to explain it away by some 
evasion of the true sense of the passage.! 
ae Alexander, eal by the spread of 
: 1, these opinions, and finding that a certain 
SLD 320 Colluthus had made his forbearance to- 
wards Arius the excuse for a schism, 
summoned a council to meet at Alexandria, and ex- 
communicated the heresiarch and his two followers, 
the bishops Theonas and Secundus. In order to refute 
the new heresy, he put forth an encyclical letter signed 
by his clergy, among whose signatures we find the name 
of his deacon Athanasius, in which he terms the Arians 
Exucontians (ot é& ov« dvrwyv).2 Arius continued for 
some considerable time to hold assemblies in Alexandria, 
but was at last compelled to leave that city, and went 
first to Palestine and afterwards to his friend Eusebius, 
bishop of Nicomedia. From Nicomedia Arius wrote to 
Alexander, bishop of Byzantium, a long letter in which 
he set forth his opinions in a sort of creed ;* and also 
published his Thalia or Spivitual Banquet in verse for 
the use of the common people. The troubles in the 
East caused by the quarrel between Licinius and 
Constantine were to the advantage of Arius, who after 
being acquitted of heresy at a synod held by Eusebius, 
returned to Alexandria. 
Badetavilite’s Such then was the state of affairs 
letters to Arius when Constantine became master of the 
pee erent Rast, _ Although he ‘could have had 
no special interest in the theological question, the 


‘1. Athanasius, First Discourse against the Arians. In ch. xiii. the 
four favourite Scriptural passages used by the Arians in controversy are 
enumerated: Prov. viii. 22 (Lxx), Heb. i. 4, iii. 2, Acts il. 36. 

2. Theodoret, - 7.2.1. 4. Hefele, Héstory of the Councils, vol. 1, 

- 252. 
2 eo Hefele, of. ctt., p. 256, Theodoret, 1. 4. Prolegomena to 
Athanasius, p. Xvi. 


Ce 


304 REPRESENTATIVES AT NICAEA.  [CH. XIII. 


Emperor found it impossible to ignore it, for ex- 
perience had taught him what disturbances in Egypt 
meant.! Accordingly Constantine sent Hosius of Cor- 
dova with letters to Alexander and Arius, exhorting 
them to peace, and blaming them for having presumed 
to disturb the Church by the discussion of so high 
a theme. But it was too late for mediation, and 
Constantine was impelled to measures of more drastic 
character. He determined to restore peace to the 
Church by assembling a General Council. 
It is not improbable that Hosius was 
Phe une of the first to suggest to Constantine the 
June, A.D. 325. advisability of thus settling the disputed 
question of the true place of the Son in 
the Godhead. The project, however, was a dramatic 
illustration of the new personal status of the Emperor.’ 
In Constantine’s mind the notion of one Church and one 
Empire had in all probability been long strengthening, 
and the very name oecumenical, applied to this and other 
councils, proves that it was considered as representing 
the Roman empire. But at the great Council of Nicaea 
bishops from countries which lay beyond the imperial 
frontier were invited to be present. Persia and Scythia 
sent representatives,* as well as the provinces acknow- 
ledging the rule of Constantine. The disinclination of 


the Western mind for transcendental theology is perhaps ~ 


illustrated by the fact that the majority of the bishops 
were Orientals. The provinces of the West were indeed 
very inadequately represented. The Roman Silvester 
sent to the Council two presbyters, Victor and Vincentius; 
and Hosius of Cordova, the Emperor’s friend and 
spiritual adviser, Caecilian of Carthage, whose election 
as bishop had caused the Donatist schism, and three 
other bishops, were the only other Westerns present,® 


1. Gwatkin, of. cztt., p. 33. 

2. Socrates, I. 7. The historian describes the imperial letter as 
“wondrous and full of wisdom”. Cardinal Newman, on the other hand, 
censures the presumption of an unbaptized person like Constantine 
taking part in a controversy on a purely theological question. Newman, 
Arians, p. 243 foll. . ; 

3. Gwatkin, Arzans, p. 36. 

4. Eusebius, Vita Const. 111., ¢€. 7. 

5. Hefele, Hestory of the Councils, vol. 1., p. 271. 


— 


. 
3 
: 
q 
Bt. 
4 


cH. xu] OPENING OF THE COUNCIL “305 


though Constantine had done all that was possible to 
afford facilities for travelling by placing the public 
conveyances at the disposal of the Church’s delegates.! 
The choice of Nicaea as a place of meeting was also 
favourable to a large concourse of bishops. Situated 
upon the shores of Lake Ascanius, which is joined to the 
Propontis by a navigable river, Nicaea was very easy to 
reach from all the provinces, especially from Asia, Syria, 
Palestine, Egypt, Greece and Thrace. The quick eye 
for locality which is shewn in Constantine’s choice of 
Byzantium for the site of his capital, is also exhibited 
in his fixing upon Nicaea as the meeting place for his 
great council. The name may also have influenced the 
Emperor as being of good omen for the success of 
his plans.’ 
The number of bishops present was, 
of tee daseei, according to Eusebius, more than two 
hundred and fifty. Other accounts give 
three hundred and eighteen, and dwell on the fact that 
this number corresponds with that of Abraham’s servants 
when he delivered Lot. Athanasius, who like Eusebius 
was an eye-witness, says that there were three hundred 
bishops at Nicaea.4 As the number must have varied 
during its sitting, and perhaps not all reached the locality 
ere the opening of the Council, it is easy to reconcile 
these discrepancies.’ Many of those present had suffered 
in the Diocletian persecution. Both at the time and 
afterwards, it was as an assemblage of confessors and 
martyrs, no less than as an Ecumenical Council, that 
this conclave claimed authority. A large number of 
dialecticians were present at Nicaea, some of whom 
had been brought by the bishops to assist them in their 


1. Eusebius, Vita Const. I11., c. 6. 

2. Hefele, p. 270. Nicaea was only twenty miles from Nicomedia, 
which at this time was the capital of the Eastern part of the Empire. 
Stanley, Zastern Church, Lect. ul. 

Eusebius, Vita Const. 111. 6: wéds edmrpérovea 7H ouvddm vixns 
émravuuos. The reason given in the probably spurious letter summoning 
the Council is the ‘salubrity of the air of Nicaea’. 

. Gen. xiv. 14. Athanasius, De Decretis, c. ii. Towards the 
end of his life Athanasius accepted the mystical number 318. Letter of the 
Bishops of Eevpt etc. to those of Africa. 

iS vilietele, sp. 271. 

6. Stanley’s Hastern Church, Lect. Ul. 


306 MARCELLUS OF ANCYRA, __ [cu. x11. 


debates, whilst others had doubtless been attracted to 
the Council simply by curiosity. A very characteristic 
story is told by Socrates, an historian of the fifth 
century. Whilst the Council was assembling, the dia- 
lecticians raised a discussion in which many were joining 
from mere love of argument, when suddenly a layman, 
who had been a confessor during the persecution, stepped 
forward and said abruptly, “Christ and His Apostles 
did not give us the art of logic or vain deceit, but naked 
truth to be guarded by faith and good works.” ‘This 
bold rebuke called forth universal approval, and gave a 
higher tone to all subsequent discussion.! Rufinus and 
Sozomen give a more dramatic turn to the story by 
making a philosopher, by name Eulogius, refute every 
Christian disputant, till an aged Christian priest or 
bishop, whom later tradition identifies with Spiridion 
of Cyprus, stepped forward and declared the Christian 
Faith to the philosopher. Unable to withstand the 
spirit with which the old man spoke, Eulogius forthwith 
submitted to baptism.? 
sige The important question of the heresy of 
Co Nine, Arius was the first subject which occupied 
the Council after the arrival of Constantine. 
The bishops had begun by presenting to the Emperor 
numerous petitions stating their grievances against one 


another; but Constantine gathered these together and — 


committed them to the flames, that the world might not 
know that Christian bishops had any differences among 
themselves. After this well-timed rebuke the real 
business of the Council began. It speedily became 
manifest that there were three ecclesiastical parties 
present. The extreme sections were represented by 
Arius and by Marcellus of Ancyra respectively. Pro- 
minent on the side of Marcellus was a worthier exponent 
of orthodoxy, Athanasius, the deacon whom Alexander, 
bishop of Alexandria, had brought to the Council. 
Marcellus was, however, a dangerous friend, and his 
subsequent language led to his being some years later 
not unjustly pronounced a heretic. Arius’ warmest 


1. Socrates, H. #.1. 8. Stanley, Hastern Church, Lect. m1. 
2. Stanley (Eastern Church, Lect. 111.) tells the story trom Rue 
finus i. 3, Soz. i. 18, very graphically. 


CH. XIII.) EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA- 307 


supporters were the bishops Theonas, Secundus, and the 
powerful Eusebius of Nicomedia, who was destined to 
do him yeoman’s service in after days. Between these 
two extremes was the large majority of the Council, who 
disliked innovation and, for the most part, were unable 
to perceive the exact point of the controversy. The 
position of these men is illustrated by the acute remark 
of the historian Socrates, who regarded the affairs of the 
Church with the eye of a layman and a lawyer, and 
who loved the Christian Faith more than the Christian 
clergy. Speaking of a later phase of the Arian con- 
troversy, he says, ““ what took place resembled a fight in 
the dark, no man knew whether he struck at friend or 
foe.”? A fear of heresy on the one hand, and of 
innovation on the other, made them waverers; yet it 
was by the vote of such as these that the matter had 
to be decided. 


Ensebius 
of Caesarea. 


It is difficult in describing the state 
of parties at Nicaea to give Eusebius of 
Caesarea a place in any one of them. 
His name-sake of Nicomedia says that he shewed great 
zeal on behalf of the Arian doctrine before the meeting 
of the Council.2 This statement, however, must be 
accepted with caution, as the Arians were most anxious 
to claim the alliance of the most learned bishop in 
the world, who was also the friend and counsellor of 
Constantine. It seems more probable that Eusebius’ 
conduct was prompted by a sincere desire for peace, 
a dislike of rigid tests of orthodoxy, and a wish to see 
Arius treated fairly. He appears to have been no 
zealot: rather was he one who could appreciate the 
courage which inspired others to court the glories of 
martyrdom, without any burning desire to suffer in his 
own person. At a later time Eusebius was taunted 
with having escaped martyrdom by sacrificing. Bishop 
Lightfoot, however, reasonably argues that it is hardly 
likely that he would have been unanimously elected 
bishop of Caesarea at the close of the persecution, had 


1. Socr., H. Z.1. 23; see Gwatkin, p. 61. vuxrowaylas re oddév 
dmeixe Ta yivdueva o06e yap addAjAous Edalvovro vooivres, dp’ Gv adArjrovs 


Bracdnpuetv vredduBSavor. 


2. Theod., A. £1 5. 
U2 


308 CHRISTOLOGY OF EUSEBIUS. [CH, XIII. 


he been guilty of apostasy. But though this accusation, 
made by Potammon at the synod of Tyre, was in all 
probability without good grounds, Eusebius was not the 
man to be martyred.’ Like our own Archbishop Parker, 
the erudite bishop of Caesarea probably had the skill 
to keep himself tolerably safe during the days of 
persecution, when men of more zeal but less discretion 
suffered death or at least torture.2 His behaviour at 
Nicaea goes far to countenance this view. Let it be 
added that candour and liberality were in Eusebius 
joined with wide learning, and his moderate policy will 
not appear devoid of a moral justification. If he lacked 
the virtues which make a man a martyr or confessor, he 
was without those bitter prejudices which have marred 
so many otherwise saintly characters. 
te) As Eusebius gave a creed to the 
of oats. Council, the phraseology of which, in 
spite of a very material alteration, became 
the basis of the famous Creed of Nicaea, his teaching 
on the subject of the Trinity deserves careful attention. 
He considers that the attributes of God can be predicated 
sensu eminenti only of the Father, who is indeed the 
To dv. He alone is the representative of the muovapyia. 
If another, the Son for example, were co-eternal with 
the Father we should have two eternals, and thus we 
should drift back into Polytheism. In order that He 
might create the world, the Father sent the Son, Who, 
after abiding in Him (évdov pévav év hovydtovrs TO 
[Iarpi), became an hypostasis when He went forth from 
God. Yet He, as Son and Word of the Father, is 
Himself endowed with all divine attributes.’ Eusebius 
goes farther than Origen in glorifying the Son, by 
admitting that He is the Very Word, the Very Wisdom, 
and even the Very God (avroGeos). As He was begotten 
before all the aeons, the Son is dvapyos, that is without 
beginning in time, for He was begotten out of time. 
By this means Eusebius avoided the objectionable 


language of Arius, and was able to deny that he had 


1. Athanasius, Afo/. contra Arianos, § 8. Epiphanius, Haer. 68. 7. 

2. Smith and Wace’s Dictéonary of Christian Biography, vol. 1.5 
Pegat 6. 

3. He is the rAjpwua Oeod éx warpixs OedryTos. 


«| 43Ety* K111. ] ATHANASIUS, 309 


said of the Son #v mote éte ovx« jv, and to say that He 
was ever with the Father, though he does not use the 
term co-eternal (cuvaidios).1 In its phraseology Eusebius’ 
doctrine is inoffensive and represents the popular belief 
of his day. But if pressed to a logical conclusion, the 
result is Arianism, though he and others were unwilling 
to admit the extreme views of that heresy. Eusebius 
is interesting to us as the representative of the majority 
of Christians whose opinions were unformed, and who 
consequently tried to occupy a middle position in the 
controversy, being alternately attracted and repelled by 
orthodoxy and Arianism. In the controversies which 
followed Nicaea these formed the bulk of the Semi-Arian 
party. 
ites Men like Eusebius of Caesarea could 
of Athanasius, “Ot do more than postpone the question. 
The symbol most agreeable to this party 
would be a creed which would neither offend nor fully 
satisfy anybody, but would leave the Arian dispute much 
as it had been before. Arius and his friends knew 
perfectly what they wanted, and were not the men to be 
crushed by a majority, however large, which did not 
know its own mind. But on the other side there was 
also one man who was fully determined on his course of 
action,—Athanasius, the Alexandrian deacon. ‘Though 
not yet thirty years of age, Athanasius had taken an 
active part in the controversy, and had already published 
two treatises on the subject.?, Despite his comparatively 
humble rank in the Church, he was listened to with 
profound attention, possibly as the mouthpiece of his 
bishop, Alexander. A cursory glance at his theological 
system, as it is found in the treatises he wrote before 
A.D. 325, will shew how remote was the position of 
Athanasius from the cold definitions of Arius and the 
vague uncertainties of Eusebius. Like Arius, Athanasius 
distinguishes clearly between God and the World; but 
unlike him, he will not believe in the isolation of the 


1. Dorner, of. ctt., vol. I1., pp. 219—224. Eusebius’ views are to 
be read in his treatise Adv. Marcellum. 

2. The Adyos ea@’"EAXnvas and the Ilepl rijs évavOpwrjoews Tod Né-you 
Tov Geod. ‘** De Incarnatione Verbi,’—they form, in reality, two parts of a 
single work. 


310 THEOLOGY OF ATHANASIUS.  [cH. x1. 


Creator, God is in the World as the immanent 
principle of its harmony. When He saw man deprived 
by sin of his former spiritual union, the Father was 
touched with compassion ;—it appealed to His pity 
(€Eexadéoato). But God could not deny Himself by 
accepting man’s submission without atonement for his 
sin. Thus it was that the Logos, who had created man 
out of nothing, intervened to save man by suffering in 
his stead. Because the Logos took our nature upon 
Him, our nature possesses Him, He belongs to us; we 


constitute the body of which He is the Head. And 


_ being thus united to men, the Logos unites us to the 
Father, for He is the image of the Father, pre-existent, 
yet ever resting in God. Here we have a true view 
of God, His Word, the universe, and man. A Father 
who is a real Father, loving mankind, grieving over 
their estrangement from Him, and providing a means 
for their salvation. A real Son, the Word of the Father, 
ever with Him and yet with His own hypostasis. A 
universe, the harmony of which is due to the presence 
of God, of. which it can be said ‘The Lord has touched 
its every part.”! Mankind, alienated from God yet 
restored to Him by His incarnate Word, who became 
man that we might be made God.? Such then was 
the Christian system as it appeared to Athanasius. It 
seemed indispensable to a proper representation of the 
unity of the Godhead, that there should be left no 


possibility of a believer accepting the dangerous ex- . 


planation of Arius.® | 

ata ae The learning, eloquence, and the 

roof Cacsarea, court favour enjoyed by Eusebius gave 
him great weight at the Council. He 


had pronounced the inaugural address of the Council 


to the Emperor, and it was his ambition to be allowed 
to give a creed to the Church. Accordingly, after the 
creed of Arius had been read and torn in pieces by the 
indignant bishops, he produced a symbol, which he 
I. mavra yap rhs krloews uépwr Haro 6 Oeds. 
2. 0 dA\dyos évnvOpwrnoer Iva Huels OeomorjOwper. 


3. Dorner, op. czt., vol. 11., pp. 249—259. Page 251 is especially 
worthy of notice. Moberly, Atonement and Personality, pp. 349 ff. 


Theodoret, A. Z. 1. 7, ev0éws dvéppntay dmavres, voov Kat 


KLBOndov dévoundoarres. 


{ a 
g 
a 
4 

1 


CH. X11} CREED PROPOSED BY EUSEBIUS. 311 


averred had been long in use in his own church of 
Caesarea. His exact words are: “As we received from 
the bishops who were before us, both when we were 
catechized and when we received baptism (7é Aovtpév), 
and according to what we have learnt from the Holy 
Scriptures, and as we have believed and been in the 
habit of teaching both in our own presbyterate and 
In our episcopate. Thus believing, we lay this 
statement of our faith before you.” It was in many 
ways satisfactory. It harmonized with Apostolic tradi- 
tion in attributing the highest honours to the Second 
Person of the Trinity, and it was at the same time free 
from all suspicion of the dreaded heresy of Sabellius. 
It was, moreover, one which everybody could sign, if 
not ex animo, at least without doing violence to his 
conscience. But this was exactly what Alexander and 
his friends did not want; they had come to the Council, 
not to make an agreement between all parties, but to 
sift the matter thoroughly. Either Arius was right or 
he was wrong. No compromise was possible. The 
Council had no hesitation in pronouncing an unqualified 
condemnation of the views of Arius; not twenty mem- 
bers were found to vote for an Arianizing creed proposed 
by Eusebius of Nicomedia, and Arius soon found himself 
with only five supporters. It was at this juncture that 
Eusebius of Caesarea brought forth his creed.’ It was 
as follows :— 


We believe in One God, Father, all-Sovereign, Creator of all 
things whatsoever, both visible and invisible ; and in one Lord Jesus 
Christ, the Word of God, God of God, Light of Light, Life of Life, 
only-begotten Son, the First-born of all creation, begotten of God the 
Father before all the ages, by Whom also all things came into being, 
Who became flesh for our salvation, and lived among men, and 
suffered, and rose again the third day, and ascended to the Father, 
and will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead. We 
believe also in one Holy Ghost. (We believe) that Each of these is 


1. The use of the word Creed must not mislead the reader. The 
Council of Nicaea did not intend to issue a baptismal formula, but a 
universal test of orthodoxy to be signed by bishops upon occasion. The 
Nicene Creed is never called o¥uBorov (except at the Council of Laodicaea, 
A.D. 363), but always mioris or ud@nua, till its conversion into a baptismal 
profession in the fifth century. Gwatkin, Studzes of Artanism, p. 37. 


312 THE HOMOOUSION, (CH. x11 


and subsists: the Father truly as Father, the Son tea as Son, the 
Holy Ghost truly as Holy: Ghost ; as our Lord also says when He 
sends His disciples to preach: Go and make all nations disciples, 
baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and 
of the Holy Ghost.? 


This creed, though perfectly inoffensive, was un- 
satisfactory to Alexander and the opponents of the 
teaching of Arius, since it left the two points at issue 
practically untouched. After his denial of our Lord’s 
union with the Father, it was no longer possible to 
be content with the acknowledgment that the Second 
Person of the Trinity was “born before all the ages” 
(wpo TwavTwv TOV aiovev) or that He was “ First-born 
of all creation”, since his followers could accept these 
expressions and still teach that the Logos was not 
eternally begotten. In like manner they were prepared 
to accept the expression Geds €x Oeod, for all things are 
of God, and the Son is, in a sense, God. A further 
objection to the proposed’ creed was the studiously 
ambiguous expression, which left the whole doctrine 
of the Incarnation in uncertainty.” 

The creed of Eusebius was however 

The Creed of “accepted as the basis of the new symbol, 
The Homoousion. but in an amended form. ‘There was only 
one way of making Arianism impossible, 

and that was to use a word, which was not only un- 
scriptural, but which was in bad repute as having been 
used by the heretics Valentinus and Paul of Samosata. 
The Son must be declared to be of one substance or 
essence (ooovcvos) with the Father, in order to exclude 
Arius from the Church. The courage of the orthodox 
party in proposing to make use of such an expression 
was very great. According to Irenaeus it had been used 
by the Valentinians, and it had gained an evil notoriety 
in the East in the disputes about Paul of Samosata. 
The Arians could taunt their opponents with having 
borrowed the word from the armoury of heresy. The 


I. Hefele, pp. 288, 289. The creed is found in Eusebius’ letter to his 
church, given by Athanasius in his De Decr. Syn. Nic., by Theodoret, 
Hl. &. 1. 12, and Socrates, A. #. 1. 8. Burn, Ltroduction to the 
Creeds, p. 79. 

2. Gwatkin, Studies of Arianism, p. 39. 


CH. XIII] AMENDMENTS ADOPTED. : 313 


orthodox party, however, resolved to face the reproach 
of having used an heretical word as a means of over- 
throwing error. The Homdousion left no room for Arian- 
ism. If our Lord was declared to be of one substance 
with the Father, the whole theory of Arius, that He was 
of a lower nature, and capable of change and even of 
sin, entirely fell to the ground. According to Eusebius, 
Constantine wanted the creed already proposed to be 
accepted with the word opmoovc.os inserted: but the 
majority of the Council, by the advice of Hosius of 
Cordova, Eustathius of Antioch, Marcellus of Ancyra, 
and the other anti-Origenist bishops of the East,! de- 
cided to make six important alterations in the creed 
before them. ‘They were, according to Prof. Gwatkin, as 
follows :— 

1. In the words, “tov tév ardytwy opaTav te Kal 
dopatwv TontHy, tavtov (all things) was substituted 
for tov datavtwy (all things whatsoever), to exclude 
the creation of the Son and Spirit2. This shews how 
carefully the Council did its work. 


1. See Bishop Bull, Defence of the Nicene Creed, p. 70 foll.3 on p. 99 
Bishop Bull quotes Tertullian, Adv. Praxeam, c. 8: ‘‘Non ideo non utitur 
et veritas vocabulo, quia et haeresis potius ex veritate accepit, quod ad 
mendacium suum strueret.” See Nicene and Fost-Nicene Fathers, 
Prolegomena to Athanasius, p. xvii. It is certain that Athanasius 
was not the author of the word duooto.or. It is noticeable that even in 
his later writings he avoids using it, and in his Dzscourses against the 
Arians it only occurs three or four times. Athanasius, JVicene and 
Post-Nicene Fathers, p. 303. The word opoovoros means ‘that which 
partakes of the same ovgia, a word first used by Aristotle to express that 
which is self-existent (ywpiordv). The compound word dootvocos was first 
used by the Gnostic Valentinian to express the homogeneity of the two 
factors in the fundamental dualism of the universe. It is used in a some- 
what similar sense in the Clementine Homilies, xx. 7. The term ovola 
was to Christian theologians liable to be misleading, because Origen had 
adopted the Platonic expression that ‘God is beyond all essence (ovclas)’, 
thus connecting the word with the idea of something material. Thus the 
Origenist bishop of the East, in pronouncing against Paul of Samosata, 
repudiated the term duooveros with the concurrence of Dionysius of Rome, 
who a few years before had successfully pressed it as a test word on his 
name-sake of Alexandria. The adoption of this word was therefore naturally 
repugnant to many, and it was not for many years, and only after the Cappa- 
docian fathers had distinguished between ovcla and vmicracrs, that the 
Symbol of Nicaea found universal acceptation. See the Prolegomena to 
Athanasius, p. xxxi f.” : 

2. See Harnack, Héstory of Dogma, vol. Iv., p. 54, and especially 
the note on p. 56. Baker, Christian Doctrine, p. 171 n. 


314 THE NICENE CREED. — (cH. x11, 


2. The Sonship of the Second Person was thrown 
to the front, and all subsequent clauses referred to the 
Son instead of to the Logos. 


3. The words touréotw é« ths ovcias tov Ilarpos 
were added to explain the word povoyevns. 


4. Zoyy ee Cwons..... TpwrotoKov Twacns KTicEws 
became Qeov adrnOivov éx Ocov adrnOwod, yevvnbévta ov 
momlévta, opoovotov tS IIatpi. The two participles 
which the Arians had confused were thus carefully 
distinguished. 


5. To capxwfevta was added xal évavOpwmrycavta. 
6. An anathema was added. 


The creed of the Council was therefore set forth 
in the following terms :— | 


IIvotevomev eis Eva Ocdov Tlatépa mavtoxpdropa, 
TAVTWV OpaTav Te Kal aopaTwY ToLNnTHDY. 

Kai eis &va xvptov, "Incodtv Xpiotov, tov vidv tov 
cod, yevvnbévta ex tod Ilarpos povoyevn—rtovtéotw ék 
THs ovcias tov Ilatpos—Oecdv éx Oeov, Pas éx Pwros, 
Ocdv adrnOivov ex Oeov adrnOwvod, yevvnlevta ov troumlevta, 
€ A : nan 
opoovatov To Ilatpi, dv ob Ta TavTa éyeveTo, TA TE EV TH 
oupav® Kal Ta év TH yy Tov Ov Huds Tovs avOpwTrous Kal 

pav@ Kal Ta EV TH YH ) ne $ p SK 

Sua THv Huetépay awtnpiav KateNOovta, Kal capxwOerta, 
> / t it. 2 s a , is 2 
évavOpwrncavta, TaQovta, Kal avactavta TH TpiTH HuLEpa, 
Rd t 2 \ ? U > a a x 
avehOovta eis Tovs ovpavos, épyouevoy Kpivar Cavtas Kai 
VEKPOUS. 

Kai eis ro IIvedpa 16 “Ariov. 

® > 
Tovs 5€ Aéyortas, HY Tote OTE OVK HV, } OVK HY ply 
ig] Led b) bla > / a ? e / ¢€ , 

yevunOjvat, ) €& ove dvTav éyéveTo, 7 EF ETépas UTOTTATEWS 


n 


 ovcias hacKovtas elval, ) KTLTTOY 1 TpeTTOV 7) adAot- 


I. Gwatkin, Studies of Artanism, pp. 41, 42. See Hort’s Two 


Dissertations, p. 138. Bethune-Baker, Jtroduction to Early Christian 
Doctrine, p. 168. 


CH. X11.) ARJUS AND OTHERS BANISHED, 315 


\ ‘ ey a 
w@tov tov Liov tov Oeod, rovtovs avabeuatifer  KaOorKy 
Kat atooToNiKy éxxAnoia? 


Constantine after some deliberation 

Cee tan he agreed to this creed, and the majority 
others banished. Of the Council subscribed to it without 
hesitation, Eusebius of Caesarea objected 

to the anathema; he took a day to consider whether 
he should sign at all, and referred the matter to the 
Emperor. Constantine (who apparently understood the 
Greek language imperfectly)? was able to assure the 
greatest scholar of his day that owoovctos involved no 
such material unity in the Persons of the Godhead as 
Eusebius feared might be deduced from it.2 Fortified 
by this weighty opinion, Eusebius signed the creed, 
and wrote to his congregation in Palestine to explain 
why he had done so. The letter does no honour to 
the character of Eusebius, who gives the language of 
the Arians a meaning which he must have known 
they did not intend* His name-sake of Nicomedia 
also subscribed to the creed, but his action brought 
him little benefit, as he was banished within the year. 
Arius was left with only five supporters, the bishops 
Theonas and Secundus, the presbyter Saras, the deacon 
Euzoius, and the reader Achillas. They were all 
banished to Galatia or to Illyricum; Arius remaining 
some six years in the last-named province, where he 
may perchance have instructed Ursacius and Valens, 
who in after days championed his doctrines.’ But the 


1. The theological student will do well to commit, if possible, this 
creed to memory, especially the anathema, which gives in a brief form the 
views held by Arius. The words underlined are in the Eusebian creed. 
Burn, of. ctt., p. 79. 

2. Eusebius says that though Constantine addressed the Council in 
Latin he also spoke Greek, ‘E\Anvitwy ri guvp ore wndé radrys duals 
elxev, but see Valesius’ note on Socrates I. 14. 

3. See Stanley, Zastern Church, Lect. Iv: 

4. Hefele, Counczls, vol. 1., p. 291. The letter of Eusebius is found 
in the De Decr. Syn. Nic. Eusebius explains the words mpiv -yervnOjvat 
ovx 4v as referring to our Lord’s Incarnation. Neither the Arians nor the 
orthodox understood the words in this sense. Robertson, Athanasius, 

. Xvili. 
: 5. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Prolegomena to Athanasius, 
Pp. Xxxiv. 


316 ARIAN CONTROVERSY.  ___ [CH. XIIL. 


exiles do not seem to have hastened from Nicaea, as the 
name of Secundus appears among the signatories of the 
Council.’ 

Nevertheless, the triumph of the Homdousion was 
more apparent than real. The vast majority of the 
bishops failed to comprehend the actual meaning of 
the point at issue. Constantine pressed them to accept 
the creed because he hoped that it would secure the 
peace of the Church; and the Arianizing party allowed 
the Homdousion to be acknowledged, in the hope that 
they could explain it away. The contest only began 
with the Council of Nicaea. Alexander, Eustathius, 
and Athanasius had won a great victory, but the war 
was not ended.? 7 

Before proceeding with the history of 

The Arian the Council it may be well to pursue 
Controversy tothe the Arian controversy to the death of 
Constantine, Constantine. Constantine may in all 
probability have felt that in securing a 

practically unanimous assent to the Creed of Nicaea 
he had silenced controversy, and that henceforward 
the Christians would live in concord. The failure of 
the Synod of Arles to heal the Donatist schism gave 
indeed but a doubtful omen as to the success of the 
Council of Nicaea, still he may have regarded the 


practical unanimity with which the creed was accepted — 


as an earnest of peace. He was destined to be speedily 
undeceived. The Arianizing party began to intrigue 
as soon as the Council closed. By a.p. 330 they felt 
themselves strong enough to attack Eustathius, bishop 
of Antioch. How his enemies managed to secure his 
deposition is not very certain. Various charges are 
suggested by the historians.2 In the meantime Eusebius 
of Nicomedia had returned from exile, and was once 


1. Stanley, Zastern Church, Lect. Iv. 

2. Harnack, Azstory of Dogma, vol. IV., p. 59. 

3. -Among them one of fornication. See Gwatkin, p. 74, note. Dean 
Milman says ‘* The unseemly practice of bringing forward women of bad 
character to charge men of high station in the Church... , formerly em- 
ployed to calumniate the Christians, was adopted by the reckless hostility 
of Christian faction.” Eustathius lived till 358. He was deposed with the 
full consent of the civil power, perhaps on account of his having been 
charged with defaming Helena. Athanasius, Wistoria Arianorum, C 4. 


CH. xI1.] ATHANASIUS BANISHED, 317 


more in favour with the Emperor. The time seemed 
to have arrived when the Arians would be strong enough 
to strike at their chief opponent, Athanasius, now bishop 
(or, as he was generally styled, pope) of Alexandria. 
But this required some caution. Marcellus of Ancyra, 
whose anti-Arian opinions verged on Sabellianism, was 
first attacked and condemned as a heretic. ‘The next 
step was to prejudice the Emperor against Athanasius. 
He was accused of extortion and of magic; a darker 
insinuation—the murder of Arsenius, a Meletian bishop— 
was also added. At the Synod of Tyre, a.p. 335, 
Athanasius was formally charged with the murder of 
Arsenius, who was hidden by the bishop’s enemies and 
only discovered by him with great difficulty. At the 
synod, however, the hand of a dead man was produced 
as evidence, but Athanasius presented Arsenius alive and 
with both his hands.!_ He then, seeing the impossibility 
of obtaining justice from such a tribunal, hastened to 
Constantinople and presented himself before the Em- 
peror to demand a fair trial. His accusers were sum- 
moned, and this time made a charge of high treason 
against Athanasius; they declared that he had detained 
the Alexandrian corn ships, which supphed Constan- 
tinople with provisions.2, The very whisper of such an 
accusation was enough to arouse the suspicion of the 
Emperor, and Athanasius was banished to Treves, 
A.D. 336. The triumph of his opponents was complete: 
Arius wrote to Constantine a confession of his faith, 
which eluded the points at issue, but satisfied the 
Emperor,’ and the Emperor ordered him to be restored 
to the Church in Constantinople. To the great joy of 
the orthodox, he died on the very day appointed for 
his restoration.‘ 


1. Athanasius, <Afologia contra Arianos, 8 and 38. Socrates, 
fe Piatt je ky: 20. 

2. Apologia contra Arianos, 9. Eusebius said that Athanasius was 
powerful enough to do as he liked with the Alexandrians. 

3. Hahn, Symdbole, p. 256. Socrates, 1. 26. Sozomen, Il. 27. 

4. Arius was seized with violent internal pains and died on the day 
‘on which he was to be restored to the Church. The orthodox regarded 
his death as a miracle. ‘‘ Athanasius” (says Dean Milman) ‘‘in a public 
epistle alludes to the fate of Judas, which had befallen the traitor to the 
coequal dignity of the Son. His hollow charity ill-disguises his secret 


318 THE MELETIAN SCHISM. [CH. XIII. 


With the drawing up of the Nicene 
Settlement of the Creed the main business of the Council 
Controversy. The ended, but a few matters remained to be 
ane CRE arranged before the bishops dispersed. 

Niéaea. The ancient Paschal controversy was 

settled by an agreement to adhere to 
the practice of the majority of churches, and to dis- 
continue the mode of keeping Easter on the 14th of 
Nisan, as had been the custom in Syria, Mesopotamia, 
and Proconsular Asia. ‘The church of Alexandria was 
entrusted with the duty of ascertaining the date of 
Easter every year and announcing it to the churches 
throughout the world. To this circumstance we owe 
the Festal Letteys of Athanasius! Several sects of 
Quartodecimans survived into the fifth century, notably 
an ascetic body, styled the Audians. 

The Meletian schism also demanded the attention of 
the fathers of Nicaea. Its origin is obscure. Gibbon, in 
one of his biting sentences, says “it has been mis- 
represented by the partiality of Athanasius and the 
ignorance of Epiphanius.” Hefele summarises the facts 
as follows:—(z) Meletius, an Egyptian bishop, held 
ordinations in other dioceses in times of persecution. 
(2) They were unnecessary, and Meletius never obtained 
leave either from the imprisoned bishops or from Peter 
of Alexandria, who was not incarcerated at the time. 
(3) Meletius despised the remonstrances of the im- 
prisoned bishops, and would not listen to them or 
to Peter. (4) Accordingly Peter excommunicated 
Meletius. Epiphanius says that this schism, like the 
earlier schism of Novatian, turned on the question 
of the treatment of the lapsed. The Council acted 


triumph.” ist. of Christianity, vol. 11., p. 382. It should be noticed, 
however, that Athanasius regards the death of Arius as a punishment for 
perjury rather than for heresy: on the whole Milman’s verdict appears 
harsh. Athanasius, dd Epzscopos Aegypit, § 19, and Ep. Liv. ad Serapionem. 

I. Stanley, wf. czt., Lect. v. ‘‘The Festal Letters of Athanasius, 
preserved to our day by the most romantic series of incidents in the history 
of Christian documents.” Dean Stanley refers his readers to Dr. Cureton’s 
Preface to the Festal Letters of Athanasius. On the keeping of Easter, 
etc., see the wise and Christian remarks in Socrates, H. Z. v. 22, a chapter 
which should be read, marked, and learned by all who engage in con- » 
troversies about ritual. 


CH. x11I.] == CANONS OF NICAEA. 319 


with great tact and moderation by deciding that 
Meletius was to retain the title of bishop, but that the 
clergy whom he had ordained should be confirmed in 
their position by the laying on of hands, and then 
take rank below those ordained by Alexander. The 
Meletian faction subsequently supported the Arians.} 

The Canons of Nicaea are twenty in number, and 
provide, among other things, for the establishment of 
provincial councils to be held twice a year, for con- 
firming the patriarchal rights of the sees of Alexandria 
and Antioch on the same footing as that of Rome, 
and for the recognition of the honour due to the 
bishop of Aelia (Jerusalem), saving, however, the rights 
of the metropolitan see of Caesarea.” 

The Council of Nicaea has an abso- 
lutely unique position among Christian 
assemblies. As the first Ecumenical 
Council it marks the commencement of a new era. 
The very name oecumenical (otxovpevixy) denotes its 
imperial character: we see in it the germ of the idea 
which exercised so powerful a fascination on the mind 
of the middle ages—that of the Holy Roman Empire, 
the union of the civil and ecclesiastical governments, 
At the same time it must be borne in mind that the 
Council of Nicaea had all the characteristics of an 
Oriental assembly. It was dominated, not by the 
Western ideal of Pontiff and Emperor ruling co- 
ordinately, but by the Eastern belief that the Emperor 
in himself represents all authority, both spiritual and 
temporal. This theory still remains in the Greek 
Church. Not only had Constantine the whole ordering 
of affairs at the Council: unbaptized as he was, he 
speaks as an episcopus episcoporum, and delivers public 
homilies on religion. The decrees of Nicaea are still 
held in reverence by every branch of the Catholic 
Church. The canons of the first four General Councils, 


Church and State 
at Nicaea. 


I. Hefele, Wzst. of the Counczls, vol. 1., p. 343 foll. 
2. Bright, Azstory of the Four General Councils. 


3. He said to the bishops (but not at Nicaea) ‘‘ You are the bishop® 
of those within the Church, but I would fain be the bishop of thos~ 
without, as appointed by God.” Euseb., Vita Const. Iv. 24. 


320 CONSTANTINE AT ROME. _ [CH. XIIL 


except those which have been expressly repealed, are a 
part of the laws of England! The Creed of Nicaea 
is the creed of Christendom. It has been shewn that 
there were blemishes even in this great Council, but 
notwithstanding we must ungrudgingly pay our tribute 
of admiration to the truly Christian spirit which 
prompted many of its decrees. The Meletians were 
treated with rare forbearance. The attempt to enforce 
celibacy on the clergy was stopped by the protest of 
the ascetic confessor, bishop Paphnutius. The rights of 
individuals were carefully guarded in the fifth canon, 
ordering the assembly of provincial synods. Best of all, 
there were so few denunciations of heretics that St. 
Jerome could say, “Synodus Nicaeana omnes haeveticos 
suscepit praeter Pauli Samosatensis discipulos.’” 
Constantine must have quitted Nicaea 
Constantineat feeling that he had done a good work 
Death Na Star and achieved a marked success. He had, 
A.D. 326. - to all appearance, both organized and 
pacified the Church. The intrigues which 
subsequently caused confusion, and almost undid the 
work of the great Council, had not yet begun. The 
Emperor seemed justified in considering that he had 
given to his dominions a Church at peace with itself, 
ready to undertake the great work of elevating and 


purifying mankind without let or hindrance. Little 


did he suppose that this hour of triumph was the 
prelude to a dark and dreadful tragedy, destined to 
embitter the remainder of his life, and to leave on his 
name an ineffaceable stain. In the year 326 Constantine 
visited Rome for the last time. He arrived shortly 
before the celebration of the anniversary of the battle 
of Lake Regillus. He was injudicious enough to scoff 
at the pageant of the knights riding ‘in all their pride’ 


1, Stanley, of. czt., Lect. 11. ‘* It is well known that in one of the 
earliest Acts of Elizabeth, which undoubtedly has considerable authority 
as expressive of the mind of the foundress of the present constitution 
of our Church, the Councils of Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus, and 
Chalcedon are raised as judges of heresy to the same level as ‘ the High 
Court of Parliament with the assent of the English clergy in their 
Convocation ’.” 

2. Stanley (Zastern Church, Lect. v.) quotes Jerome, Adv, 
Luciferianos, c. 26. 


>. eae 7 
Se , 
ae ee ie 5 


a 


CH. XIII.] DONATION ad CONSTANTINE, 321 


to the Capitol in eheitotation of the deliverance of 
Rome by Castor and Pollux, who were supposed to have 
fought for Rome and to have brought the news of the 
victory to the city. The people were infuriated at the 
Emperor's contemptuous attitude towards their pageant, 
and a riot ensued. 

The popularity of Crispus, the eldest son of Con- 
stantine, excited the jealousy of his father, who perceived 
that the people were transferring their affections to the 
young Caesar. Crispus was sent under a strong guard 
to Pola in Istria, and there made away with. The 
Caesar Licinius, son of Constantine’s sister and of his 
late rival, was also executed. Helena, the mother of 
Constantine, furious at the murder of her favourite 
grandson, accused the Empress Fausta of having caused 
the Emperor to put Crispus to death on a false charge. 
Later writers say that Fausta was guilty of adultery. 
At any rate, according to Zosimus’ account, it appears 
that she was put to death by being suffocated in a bath. 
Great uncertainty overhangs these dark transactions, the 
truth respecting which will perhaps never be known.’ 

After the terrible scenes enacted in 
the palace, Constantine determined never 
to return to Rome. Before, however, he 
left the Imperial City, legend ascribes to him an action 
which, though without any foundation in fact, has left a 
more permanent impression on the Western Church than 
any historical event in his reign. It is said that he 
established the temporal dominion of the Papacy, by his 
famous donation to Silvester, bishop of Rome. The 
legend (which cannot be traced back to a period anterior 
to the Iconoclastic controversy in the eighth century) 
relates that Constantine, after cruelly persecuting the 
Christians and driving Silvester into exile, was smitten 
with leprosy. ‘The Pope restored Constantine to health, 
and, in gratitude, the Emperor bestowed on him the 
sovereignty of the whole of Italy and of the West. 


The Donation of 
Constantine. 


I. Zosimus, II. 29. 

2. Zosimus, according to Gibbon, ch. xviii., *‘may be considered 
our original.” In thé opinion of that historian he is wrong about the 
death of Fausta. 

3. Gibbon, ch. xlix. ; Milman, Hsstory of Latin Christianity, vol. ly 
p. 72, and note. 

x 


322 CONSTANTINE’S CONVERSION, _ [cH. XII. 


This wonderful story lived—such is the vitality of 4 
falsehood—for no less than seven centuries. Dante, a : 
strong supporter of imperialism, believed it, and blames 
Constantine for enriching the Pope in such a way. The 
honour of refuting this impudent fiction belongs to 
Laurentius Valla, a scholar of the fifteenth century. It 
is to the credit of the clerical authorities of Rome 
that Valla was reconciled to the Church and buried 
(strangely enough) in the precincts of the Lateran 
Palace, which was perhaps the actual donation of Con- 
stantine to the Roman bishop.!' A curious contrast is 
presented by the pagan story of Constantine’s conversion 
at this time. According to one version, Constantine, 
stricken with remorse, sought purification at the hands 
of the Roman Flamens, but this was refused by them on 
the ground that their religion knew of no expiation for 
such crimes as his. According to another version, it 
was from the philosopher Sopater that he sought con-. 
solation, but without success ;? however, an Egyptian 
magician from Spain (Hosius, bishop of Cordova), 
who had much influence with the ladies of the imperial 
court, told Constantine that in the Christian Church 
there were mysteries which could purify from every sin : 
accordingly the Emperor became a Christian. 

If we compare these two widely different narratives — 
we Shall find that in one detail they agree, namely, that 
Constantine became a Christian after the execution of 
Crispus. But it is precisely at this point that they 
appear most unhistorical. Constantine was a patron 
of the Christian Church and a worshipper of the 
Christians’ God twelve years previously; and he was 
not baptized till he was on his death bed, eleven years 
afterwards. Therefore neither his formal conversion — 
nor his baptism had taken place at the time of his 
son’s death. It is nevertheless possible that the harmony 
of the two accounts indicates some quickening of Con- 
stantine’s religious convictions in view of the crimes 


1. Gregorovius, Rome in the Middle Ages, bk. XI11., ch. vi. Valla 
died Aug. 1457. He was a Canon of St. John Lateran. 

2. Zosinius, Il. 29, p. 104, edn. Oxon. 1679. Sozomen (I. 5) says 
that, even if Constantine had asked the advice of Sopater, that philosopher 
could not have forgotten that Hercules found expiation at Athens for 
crimes similar to those of the Emperor. 


CH. xuL] CONSTANTINE’S REMORSE. 323 


recorded above. We must not forget that in that age 
of transition such men as Constantine really fluctuated 
between Christianity and paganism. At Nicaea, in the 
society of bishops and divines, the Emperor must have 
felt himself a believer. Transported to Rome, in the 
midst of the pagan surroundings of the stronghold of 
the ancient faith, Constantine may have felt drawn 
towards the heathen rites. The unjust execution of 
his distinguished son, and the terrible retribution 
Fausta’s folly compelled him to inflict upon her, 
naturally aroused feelings of profound sorrow and re- 
morse. Constantine may have turned to philosophy 
in the person of Sopater, or for the consolation of 
religion to the Flamens. He found them alike unable 
to quiet the voice of an accusing conscience, and at 
last discovered by his own spiritual experience that 
Christ alone was the source of pardon. That Con- 
stantine was not immediately baptized need not 
surprise us, if we may believe that he was at least so 
far convinced as to become a Christian catechumen.} 
The legend of the Donation almost rises to the dignity 
of an allegory. Constantine probably made over to 
Silvester Fausta’s palace of the Lateran. Shortly after- 
wards he left Rome. Thus he was in effect the first to 
lay the foundation of the papal supremacy in the West. 
Once the imperial seat was removed from Rome, the 
popes were free to give to the Eternal City spiritual 
power destined to prove more than a compensation for 
that of which she had been deprived by the transference 
of the seat of empire to the East. 
The year following the departure of 
The Holy aye Constantine from Rome witnessed the 
restoration of Jerusalem to its position 
of a Holy City. For two centuries it had borne the 
name of Aelia Capitolina, and a temple of Venus had 
stood on the site of the Jewish Temple. The Emperor’s 
mother, Helena, at the persuasion of her son, had em- 
braced Christianity. She visited Palestine, and was con- 
ducted to the places which are sanctified to Christians 
as the scenes of the work of our Redemption. She 


1. Constantine, however, was only formally admitted to the catechue 
menate just before his baptism. 


x2 


324. THE INVENTION OF THE CROSS, [cu. xin. 


was supplied with ample funds by Constantine, and 
erected two churches, one marking the spot from which 
our Saviour ascended, another at Bethlehem. A third 
church was afterwards built over the cave of the Resur- 
rection by Constantine himself. Thus much we gather 
from the conternporary account of Eusebius.1 From the 
letter of Constantine to Macarius, bishop of Jerusalem, 
given by the same historian, we may infer that Helena 
made some discovery of the instruments of our Lord’s 
Passion. The allusion is however obscure. We must 
wait seventy years to read in a Western writer the 
developed account of the ‘Invention of the Cross’. 
According to Rufinus three crosses were discovered, and 
an inscription, detached from them, bearing Pilate’s 
words, ‘This is the king of the Jews.’ To test the 
crosses a sick lady was placed on each, and was healed 
when put upon the True Cross. The historians all 
repeat this statement, and add that Constantine, 
receiving two of the nails used at the Crucifixion as 
a present from Helena, had one worked into the bit 
of his bridle, and the other placed in his crown or 
helmet. This latter incident has a real significance as 
an illustration of Constantine’s position. His Christi- 
anity appears in his receiving the nails that pierced 
Christ with reverence, his pagan ignorance in the use 
he made of them.? 
The closing years of the reign of 
costa gee’ Constantine were occupied by the founda- 
tion of the New Rome which bears his 
name. It was to the genius of this Emperor, in fixing 


1. Euseb., Vita Const. 111. 26—42. 

2. Stanley, Eastern Church, Lect. v1. Robertson, Hizst. of the 
Christian Church, vol. 1., p. 267. Socrates, 1. 9. Sozomen, Il. fr. 
Rufinus, 1. 7—8. The Dictzonary of Christian Biography (vol. U1. p. 882 4) 
gives the evidence for the story very clearly. (1) A.D. 333, a Burgundian 
pilgrim says nothing of Helena, and mentions only the churches on Olivet 
and at Bethlehem. (2) Eusebius gives the story as stated in the text. 
(3) Cyril of Jerusalem, A.D. 346, speaks of the wood of the True Cross ; 
(4) Chrysostom, A.D. 387, doesthe same. (5) Sulpicius Severus, A.D. 395, 
says that Helena built ¢4ree churches, one on the scene of the Passion. 
Three. crosses were discovered, and the right ome ascertained by the 
miraculous raising of a dead body. (6) Ambrose, A.D. 395, says three 
crosses were discovered, one bearing the inscription. (7) Rufinus, A.D. 
400, tells the generally received story. 


CH. XIII. ] CONSTANTINOPLE, 325 


his capital on the Bosphorus, that the Eastern Roman 
Empire owed that wonderful vitality which enabled it to 
survive sO many almost unparalleled calamities and to 
outlive so many kingdoms. The building of Constan- 
tinople was a fit occupation for the ruler who had first 
recognised in Christianity the firm ally of the Roman 
empire. It was just that he who had assembled the first 
General Christian Council should lay the foundation 
of the first city which rose under Christian auspices and 
which for eleven centuries proved a real bulwark of Chris- 
tianity. Constantine observed the usual ceremonies in 
founding the new city, and his conduct shews the am- 
biguous nature of his religious opinions. He attributed 
his action in selecting the site of Constantinople to the 
inspiration of God. Yet he held the golden statue of the 
Fortune of the city in his hands on the day of its dedica- 
tion. With that theatrical instinct which he displayed 
on other occasions, Constantine marched spear in hand 
to trace the limits of the new city; remarking to a 
courtier who humbly enquired how far he proposed to 
go, “‘ Till he that goes before me shall stop.” 

: When his end approached, Constantine 
eee Fe took the step from which he had hitherto 
death, A.D. 337. shrunk, and declared himself a Christian. 

Eusebius, bishop of Constantinople, the 
opponent of Athanasius, admitted him to the Church, 
first as a catechumen by the imposition of hands, then 
by baptism. On the feast of Pentecost, a.p. 337, the 
great emperor passed away. One of his Jast acts was 
to recall Athanasius from exile. 

The character of Constantine has been 

Character of Con- the subject of much discussion. The 
Cpt Eastern Church has canonized him; the 
Western, with greater discernment, has given him the 
honour of founding the temporal power of the Papacy, 
but refused him the title of saint. He is one of the few 
who have been awarded the title of Great—a title 
which the world seldom if ever bestows on its greatest 
men, but which has often been the posthumous heritage 
of those who have turned the greatness of others to 
their own advantage. As Alexander’s conquests would 
have been impossible without the previous reign of his 


326 CHARACTER OF CONSTANTINE,.  [cH. XIII. 


father Philip—as Augustus owed his empire to the work 
of Caesar—as Frederick I. of Prussia, and not his more 
famous son, was the real founder of the military power 
of his nation—so Constantine’s success was really due 
to the masterly policy of the forgotten Diocletian. In 
one thing, however, Constantine shewed his genius. 
His predecessors had seen in the Christian Church an 
enemy which refused divine honours to the Emperor: 
Constantine, recognising in her a purifier of the social 
evils of the Empire, almost persuaded the clergy to 
restore the ancient Caesar worship. The emperor 
Galerius died apologising to the Church and beseeching 
the prayers of the Christians. He is handed down to 
posterity by Lactantius as the Evil Beast : Constantine, 
on the other hand, passed away amid a chorus of 
episcopal benedictions, and to this day bears the title 
of the Equal of the Apostles (’"Iaamécrodos). Not that 
he was without religious convictions. He did not, like 
our Queen Elizabeth, regard religion as one of the 
counters in the game of politics. On the contrary, 
he and all his family were extremely impressionable 
to religious influences. That Constantine believed 
himself to be favoured by visions from Heaven there 
seems to be no doubt. He was sincerely desirous to 
do his best for the interests of the Church. One is 
struck by his patience at Nicaea, and by the forbearance 
he shewed to the Donatists. But whether his patronage 
was on the whole advantageous to Christianity is very 
doubtful. In trying to settle the Arian question off- 
hand Constantine certainly attempted more than any 
human being could accomplish; but the blame lies 
rather with his ecclesiastical advisers than with the 
Emperor. As regards the deaths of Crispus and Fausta, 
it is hard to acquit or condemn Constantine. We know 
so little of the circumstances, that our judgment must 
remain unpronounced. It is equally impossible to 
define the Emperor’s religious views by the terms 
Orthodox and Arian—we might even add, Christian 
and Pagan. He directed an age of change, and from 
time to time he changed himself. He was orthodox 
when he thought that the Homdousion would give peace 
to the Church, Arian when it failed ; he was a Christian 


CH. x11.] GREEK, ROMAN, AND TEUTON. 327 


at Nicaea, and a semi-Pagan when he traced the founda- 
tions of Constantinople; a true type of his age, un- 
settled, but ever drawing nearer to Christianity. Few 
men, we may at least say, have done such enduring work. 
Greater characters than his have passed and will pass 
into oblivion, but Constantinople will probably preserve 
his name for many future centuries; and as long as 
Christianity lasts it will never be forgotten that Con- 
stantine summoned the great and holy Synod of Nicaea. 


When we pause at the grave of Constantine we 
seem to stand on a mountain top; before us lies the 
modern, behind us the ancient world. We are at the 
source of three great rivers of modern thought. The 
one representing the Eastern Church goes brawling 
down the mountain side, a copious but noisy stream, 
deafening us with its perpetual controversy ; when it 
reaches the level country it breaks into many courses, 
which flow in silent and unbroken streams divided by 
mighty barriers from one another, all alike seeming 
unable to fertilize the land through which they glide. 
Westward there flows a more silent but a mightier 
river; every mile of its splendid course is full of interest ; 
at one time it carries a flood of blessings, at another, 
its wrath destroys millions; at one part of its course 
it purifies all around; at another, it poisons the air with 
the pollutions it has received. Now loveable, now 
hateful; now gentle, now furious and terrible; now pure, 
now corrupted; now broad, now narrow—the Latin 
Church may at times cause disgust, but never indiffer- 
ence. Teutonic thought at last diverges from Latin 
Christianity. Its course lacks the uniformity of the 
Greek and the majesty of the Latin Church; but 
beauteous plants spring up by its sides, and goodly 
trees are nurtured by its waters. As we gaze from 
our mountain top, clouds yet obscure the horizon, 
which the eye longs to penetrate in the hope that all 
these waters may be joined together in the ocean of 
God’s love. 


CHAPTER XIV. 


THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY TO a.p. 361. 


Gen nice between Few periods in the Christian Church 
Church and State are more momentous than the mighty 
aint. struggle between the upholders of the 

' Creed of Nicaea and its detractors, 

which ensued after the death of Constantine. It is 
hardly an exaggeration to say that by it the whole 
course of subsequent history is affected, and that 
principles were then developed which are dominant at 
this day. Not only had a theological question closely 
affecting every Christian worshipper to be decided, 
but a political problem of the most important kind 
presented itself. The significance of the reign of 
Constantine is that in it the civil power first sought 
the aid of the spiritual. The great emperor reversed 
the policy of his predecessors by inviting the Christian 
Church to assist him in eradicating the moral disease 
of the Roman world. The two hostile powers—the 
Church and the Empire—became allies, but the terms of 
the alliance were not settled, nor has the true solution 
yet been found. The Arian controversy is in fact the 
opening scene of the great drama of Church and State, 
and we are able to recognise how the apparently irre- 
concileable difference in the aims of the two powers 
became evident from the first. The essence of all pro- 
gressive civil government must always be expediency. 
The wise legislator has to frame his laws with a view 
to the immediate needs of the people. He must con- 
sider not only the merits of every enactment, but the 
possibility of its enforcement. With the Church it is 
otherwise. Since her mission is to deal with verities 


CH. XIV.| WHO ARE MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH? 329 


rather than possibilities, compromises, which are proofs 
of wisdom in a statesman, are in many cases rightly 
regarded as treason by a churchman. ‘Thus it is that, 
however harmoniously the ecclesiastical and civil 
polities may seem to work together, circumstances will 
inevitably arise to place them in opposition to one 
another, the triumph of either being seldom unattended 
by dangerous consequences: nothing being more con- 
temptible than a temporal ruler whose policy is swayed 
by a priesthood, save a priesthood which is the tool of a 
secular government. 
oe In the fourth century Church and 
_ Principles Empire united together in the work of 
involved in the : ; P 
Gontest: ruling mankind. ‘The emperors ceased to 
persecute, and.sought the friendship of 
the Church. No sooner however had Constantine 
stretched out the right hand of fellowship to the 
Christians than the question arose, ‘‘ What is the 
Church?” It was put in a practical form by the 
Donatists of Africa, who maintained that it was the 
remnant which had remained absolutely staunch during 
the persecution. The question to be decided in their 
case was simply whether certain bishops had or had 
not betrayed the Faith. The matter was fully in- 
vestigated, but this did not prevent a schism, which 
at times took the form of a civil war. The Donatists 
when the State decided against them renounced its 
authority. ‘Quid Imperatori cum ecclesié >” was their 
famous protest. The Arian controversy raised the same 
point but in a more subtle form: ‘‘ Were those men 
members of the Church who refused to accept a most 
difficult point of doctrine?”’ Constantine acted with 
great wisdom in the matter. He had assembled the 
Ecumenical Council which had arrived at a decision 
on the point at issue, and he considered that this 
ought to settle the question finally. But here the 
difference between the administration of the State and 
the principles of the Church became, for the first time in 
history, prominent. The former regarded tranquillity 
as the primary object to be obtained; the Creed of 
Nicaea was valuable in its eyes in so far as it ensured 
peace. Not so the Church. If the Creed of Nicaea 


330 POLICY OF CONSTANTIUS. [CH, XIV. 


were true it should be upheld at any cost, for Truth 
should never be sacrificed to purchase a delusive peace. 
Thus, while Constantine regarded the Creed as an olive 
branch, Athanasius looked on it as a notice warning off 
all heresies (otnAoypadia xata twacav aipécewy),’ and 
this accounts for the disfavour in which the Emperor 
in his latter days held the bishop of Alexandria. To 
his dying day Constantine respected the work of the 
great Council, but he wished it to be as an open door 
to admit men to fellowship with the Church; even 
Arius had only to bow his head and enter by it. To | 
Athanasius the Symbol was like the sword of the 
Cherubim that turned every way to keep the way to 
the Tree of Life. 


Constantius and 
Athanasius, 


It seems probable that Constantine’s 
son and successor, Constantius, had a far 
more definite policy than that with which 
he is generally credited. The very vacillations of his 
faith seem to indicate a certain consistency of aim. 
When we find that this emperor supported the Eusebian 
faction, then received Athanasius back into favour only 
to turn upon him with increased bitterness, then allowed 
the Arians their turn, and finally threw his influence 
into the scale with the Homoeans, we are inclined to 
pronounce him the most fickle of men. But, if we 
recognise that Constantius was trying to carry out 
the work of his father by incorporating the Church 
with the Empire, we shall acknowledge that he really 
tried to ascertain the will of the majority and supported 
in turn whatever party seemed most likely to represent 
it.2 The great antagonist of the imperial policy was 
Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, one of the best types 
of those great rulers of the Church whom scorn of 


1. Harnack, Hest. of Dogma, p. 59. 

2. Constantius was always influenced by his surroundings. Athanasius, 
Fitst. Arian. § 69. Theodoret, A. #. v. 7. Prof. Gwatkin (Studies iv 
Arianism, p. 110) forms a most unfavourable estimate of this emperor’s 
character. ‘‘ Constantius” says Cardinal Newman “ may be taken as the 
type of a genuine Semi-Arian;.... balanced on this imperceptible centre 
between truth and error, he alternately banished every party in the con- 
troversy, not even sparing his own; and had recourse in turn to every creed 
for relief, except that in which the truth was really to be found.”—7Zzhe 
Arians in the Fourth Century. 


CH, XIV.} CONSERVATIVES OR LIBERALS? 331 


all compromise where the truth is at stake has provoked 
to defy the power of the State. Athanasius joined to 
a singularly clear intellect a ceaseless energy and an 
indomitable will. He recognised in the Nicene doctrine 
a means of destroying Arianism, and he devoted all his 
powers to the support of the creed of the great Council. 
a ae This gave him an immense advantage 
Conservatives, Over those of his opponents who agreed 
in repudiating the opinions of Arius as 

explained at Nicaea, but had no fixed principles of 
action. The majority of this heterogeneous party have 
been called Conservatives, from the way in which they 
shrank from accepting the unscriptural word ooovcuor, 
which was the key-note of the Nicene formula; but 
conservatism was not their main characteristic. They 
had rather that instinctive dislike to clear dogmatic 
definitions which marks the would-be liberal or broad 
churchman.! ‘The representative of this School was 
Eusebius of Caesarea, a man of vast erudition, but a 
courtier and opportunist by temperament and training. 
As a historian, he knew too well that it is almost 
impossible to say that any party in a dispute is entirely 
in the right; as a theologian, he disliked making a 
new creed to exclude men from the Church; and asa 
frequenter of the court he saw the need of forbearance 
in matters of doctrine. Such a man was totally unable 
to comprehend Athanasius’s single-hearted devotion to 
a great doctrinal truth. Moreover, Eusebius and many 
others of his order had suffered morally by the alliance 
of Church and State. Whenever he writes about 
Constantine one feels that Eusebius prized the worldly 
glory which the Church gained by its alliance with the 
Empire, and was tempted to forget the purity of the 
one and the corruption of the other. To lose the 


1. Professor Gwatkin, in his Studies of Arianism, seems to give 
the term ‘conservative’ two senses. On p. 91 he applies it to the bishops 
of Asia, whom he describes as being indifferent to the controversy, ‘‘and 
indifference is always conservative.” On the other hand, on p. 46, 
he speaks of the creed presented by Eusebius of Caesarea at the Council, as 
‘*a truly conservative confession, which commanded the assent of all 
parties by demanding nothing”: this latter is the very essence of so-called 
liberalism in religious matters, 


332 THE EUSEBIAN PARTY, [cH. x1v. 


imperial support seemed to such a bishop an evil which 
great sacrifices might be made to avert, and in this 
opinion the majority of the Oriental bishops concurred.} 
Eusebius’ views were exaggerated in his successor in 
the see of Caesarea, the crafty Acacius, the type of a 
courtier bishop of the fourth century. 

The leader of the first opponents of 
Athanasius was the other Eusebius, who 
was successively bishop of Berytus, Nicomedia, and 
Constantinople, after whom they were called Eusebians. 
These Eusebians have been defined as “the personal 
entouvage”’ of the bishop of Nicomedia. The nucleus 
of the party consisted of the able and influential circle 
of Lucianists who secretly sympathized with Arius, 
but the majority were conservative Orientals who 
shrank from the dogmatism of Athanasius. The name 
Eusebian is not long applicable after the great Council 
of Antioch, at which the various aims of the different 
sections of the party became manifest. The bond that 
held the Eusebians together was dislike of innovation 
and fear of Sabellianism, but it was destined to become 
manifest that no common creed could unite them.? The 
long Arian controversy from 337 to 381 proved that the 
only possible solution was the acceptance of the Creed 


The Eusebians. 


1. It is remarkable that in his Zz/e of Constantine Eusebius does not 
so much as mention Athanasius, and only alludes to Arianism. (“epixds, 
Socrates, I. 1.) He is however very anxious to place the Council of 
Jerusalem, which immediately followed the assembly at Tyre where Athan- 
asius was condemned, on a par with that of Nicaea. Vita Comstantint, Iv. 
47. His orthodoxy is defended by Bishop Bull, Defenszo Fid, Nic. 1. 
9,§20. Bp. Lightfoot, art. ‘Eusebius of Caesarea’, D. C. B., vol. IL, 
p- 347- Dr. McGiffert (Prolegomena to Euseb., /Vzcene and Post-Nicene 
Fathers, p. xiii) asserts the orthodoxy of his later writings. Prof. 
Gwatkin, of. czt., p. 107. Cardinal Newman (of, cz¢., p. 263), on the other 
hand, regards him as an eclectic teacher and a most dangerous adviser for 
Constantine. For his reasons for subscribing to the Creed of Nicaea, see 
Socrates, 1. 8; Stanley, Zastern Church, Lecture Iv. 

2. The term Eusebians is an inexact equivalent of the oft recurring 
phrase oi wepi EioéGiov, by which Athanasius in his Defence against the 
Arians means the personal entourage of the bishop of Nicomedia. In 
Prolegomenato Athanasius the real Eusebians are shewn not to be identical 
with the large political party which bears the name, and to which Eusebius 
of Caesarea belonged. They are to be carefully distinguished from the 
Semi-Arians, who appeared later and whom Athanasius in his De Synodis 
was most anxious to conciliate. Gwatkin, of. cé#., pp. 7I—73; Newman, 
op. cit., pp. 272 foll. 


CH. XIV. ] ATHANASIUS RETURNS. 333 


of Nicaea as explained by those who had found all 
conservatism in language or liberality in definition 
impracticable. 
ies Constantine left numerous relatives, 
Partition among whom he divided the splendid 
Empire. heritage of the Empire. ‘The soldiers, 
however, decided that no collateral branch 
of the family should have a share in the government, 
and massacred all the imperial family except Con- 
stantine’s three sons, Constantine II., Constans, and 
Constantius, together with two children, Gallus and 
his infant brother Julian, nephews of the deceased 
emperor. The empire was divided between the three 
brothers; the Gauls, Spain and Britain falling to 
Constantine II., who had fixed his capital at Trier 
(Tréves); Italy and Africa to Constans; and the 
Eastern provinces to Constantius, who was compelled 
to watch the Persians from the Syrian Antioch. 

At this time the bishops in the Western Empire, 
imagining, no doubt, that all had been settled at Nicaea, 
were hardly aware of the importance of the Arian 
question. It is to the East therefore that our attention 
must be chiefly directed. Constantius was resolved 
to support the Eusebians, owing partly to the influence 
of an Arianizing priest who had access to his person, 
but chiefly to a third Eusebius, then the all-powerful 
eunuch of the palace.! The Emperor did not, however, 
prevent the return of Athanasius to Alexandria. The 
bishop entered the city on Nov. 23rd, 337, and at 

once set to work to reorganize his 

St. Antony § church.? The Arian faction, which was 
at Alezandria, owever very influential, claimed to 
have the support of the great solitary, 

St. Antony. With some difficulty the saint was per- 
suaded to leave his retreat and to shew himself in 
Alexandria as the supporter of the Creed of Nicaea. No 
argument could be more convincing than the testimony 
of the hermit who was the marvel of his age and 


1. Socrates, 1% 2. Sozomen, III. 1, 

2. Socrates, 11. 3. Sozomen, 111.2. Theodoret, 1. 1, the Tenth 
Festal Letter of Athanasius. Gwatkin, p. 136, ‘The Return of Athanasius,’ 
Note cc, Hefele, Councils, § 52. 


334 ATHANASIUS AGAIN BANISHED.  {[cu. xiv. 


country. Antony departed to his retreat in the desert 
on the third day of Messori (July 27) 338, after having 
confirmed his mission by numerous miracles! In the 
meantime Paul, bishop of Constantinople, had been 
deposed and Eusebius translated from Nicomedia to 
the imperial city. 
The Eusebians were bent upon the 
Second : deposition of Athanasius, and new ac- 
banishmesto' cusations were brought forward. He 
was accused of having acted harshly 
and uncharitably as bishop of Alexandria, and of de- 
frauding the widows of Egypt and Libya by selling 
for his own benefit the corn provided for them by the 
Emperor. He was also charged with violating the 
canon forbidding a bishop deposed by a council to be 
restored to his see by the aid of the secular power. 
These accusations were despatched to the three em- 
perors, and to Julius, bishop of Rome.? Just before 
Easter, 340, Philagrius the praefect compelled Athanasius 
to leave Alexandria for the second time; and Gregory, 
a native of Cappadocia, was with much violence in- 
stalled as bishop in his stead. For seven years Athan- 
asius was absent from his see, this being his longest 
period of exile.’ 
The Eusebians had in 339 sent from 
Antioch Macarius a presbyter, with his - 
deacon, to accuse Athanasius to Julius, bishop of Rome, 


Appeal to Rome. 


1. The visit of Antony to Alexandria rests on the statements in the 
Life of Antony, c. 69, supposed to have been written by Athanasius, and 
in the /ndex to the Festal Letiers, X. But the very existence of the Saint is 
doubted. Prof. Gwatkin stated the case against it with great force in 
1882, Studies in Arianism, Note B., pp. 99 foll. ; but the appearance of 
the edition of Philo’s De Vita Contemplativa by Mr. F. C. Conybeare, 
which supports the genuineness of this description of Jewish ascetics in 
Egypt in the first century, and the careful discussion of the evidence for 
the Life of St. Antony in the Wicene and Post-Nicene edition of Athanasius, 
prove how much can be said on the other side of the question. See also 
The Laustac History of Palladius, by Dom Butler, vol. I., pp. 215 ff. ; 
and Sanday, Cretzccsm of the Fourth Gospel, pp. 58, 59. 

2. Sozomen (III. 2) says that the main charge of the Eusebians against 
Athanasius was that he had returned to his see after having been deposed 
by a council with the consent of the civil authorities. Athanasius, A7Zs?. 
Arianorum,c.9. See also the encyclical letter of the bishops of Egypt 
in the Apology against the Arians, c. 3 foll. 

3. Socrates, 11. 8—10. Sozomen, 111. § Theodoret, II. 3. 


CH. XIV ] JULIUS, BISHOP OF ROME. 335 


whither the bishop of Alexandria and his friend Marcellus 
of Ancyra had also betaken themselves. ‘The behaviour 
of the Roman bishop, when appealed to by both religious 
parties in the East as arbiter, proved him to be well quali- 
fied to act as judge in so great a quarrel. The conduct 
of Julius was impartial and dignified, and is character- 
ised by an absence of that arrogance of demeanour 
which was soon to be conspicuous in his successors. 
He refused to express any opinion till he had investigated 
the matter, for which purpose he summoned a synod 
of fifty bishops. As this assembly pronounced Athan- 
asius and Marcellus innocent of the offences laid to 
their charge, Julius wrote to the Eastern bishops then 
assembled at Antioch, exposing their conduct towards 
both Athanasius and himself. ‘This letter was addressed 
to Dianius and Flacillus, and is pro- 
Julius’ Letter nounced to be “one of the ablest docu- 
eaitern Blihops. ments in the entire controversy”. Julius 
writes with forbearance ; though he had 
been himself greatly wronged by the Eusebians, he 
indulges in no recrimination, but points out clearly 
how uncanonical all their proceedings had been. The 
deposition of Athanasius, for example, was contrary 
to the acknowledged custom that no sentence could be 
pronounced against the bishop of Alexandria without 
the assent of the bishop of Rome; and the appointment 
of Gregory was utterly illegal, as an entire stranger 
ought never to be put over any church, but the bishops 
of the province ought to have ordained “one in that 
very church, of that very priesthood, of that very clergy”. 
As regards the admission of Athanasius to communion, 
Julius shews that nothing was done till after most 
careful investigation, and that he was expressing not 
his own personal convictions but those of all the bishops 
of Italy. The whole letter is a proof of the vast 
superiority of the Roman church in calm dignity and 
moral tone to any Christian community in the Eastern 
provinces.’ 


1. Athanasius, Apologia contra Artanos, c. I1., §§ 2I—35. Socrates, 
11. 17. Sozomen, Ill. 10. The two last named, in their summary 
of the letter, imply that no canons could be passed without the consent of 
Rome « but Julius in his letter merely claims that the bishop of Alexandria 


330 THE COUNCIL OF THE DEDICATION. [cu. xiv. 


A large number of Eastern bishops met 
ee SonEse a at Antioch in a.p. 341 to celebrate the 
Creeds, A.D. 341, Gedication of the Golden Church erected 

by the Great Constantine; and the oc- 
casion was seized upon for the holding of a council to 
determine the Creed. We now enter upon a period of 
creed-making lasting for about twenty years, the object 
being to frame a confession of faith to supersede the 
Nicene Symbol. No less than four formulae were pro- 
duced by this assembly; and another was issued from 
Antioch four years later, so that the metropolis of the 
East gave the name to five confessions of faith. All 
of these were inspired by a strong dread of Sabellianism 
and are characterised by the omission of the test word 
onoovatov. At the Council of Antioch the conservative 
element was in the ascendant, and three of its confessions 
are framed in the interests of the timid orthodoxy which 
shrank from the boldness of the Creed of Nicaea. The 
first creed has been termed an ‘encyclical of the Euse- 
bians of an evasive character’, and opens with memorable 
words: “ We have never been followers of Arius, for 
how can we who are bishops follow a presbyter?” It 
condemns the Sabellian teaching of Marcellus by asserting 
the eternity of Christ’s Kingdom. The second Antiochian 
creed, better known as the Creed of the Dedication, may 
justly be styled the creed of the Eusebian party. It was 
ascribed to Lucian the martyr,’ the master of Arius and 
Eusebius, one of the great scholars on whom the mantle 
of Origen had fallen. It is a most interesting document, 
especially the last clause and the anathema affixed. The 
Three Persons of the Trinity are declared to be three 
in substance (vrocrdoe) but one in concord (cupdwvia), 
and an anathema is pronounced on all who say “ that 
there was a time or season or age before the Son was 
begotten; or that the Son was a creature like one of 
the creatures”. A third creed, a personal expression of 
faith, “God knoweth, whom I call as witness for my own 
soul that I thus believe,” etc., was proposed by Theo- 


cannot be proceeded against except by the Apostolic see. Hefele, 
Councils, § 56. 


1. See Bethune-Baker, Christian Doctrine, p. 174, note 5. 


a 


CH. XIV.]} CHARACTER OF THE ASSEMBLY, 337 


phronius of Tyana, in which Marcellus of Ancyra was 
anathematized with the earlier heresiarchs, Sabellius 
and Paul of Samosata.? 
Bee But the Arian influence was at work. 
at Antioch, Lhe Eusebians were in the majority, but 
the small but able clique of Arian 
sympathizers held a private meeting after the Council 
had dissolved, and sent a creed to Constans in the 
name of that assembly, with a conclusion which, though 
resembling the Nicene anathema, gave the doctrine of 
Arius free admission to the Church. By the publication 
of this fourth creed of Antioch the Arians made a definite 
claim to impose their views on the Church, and for 
nearly eighteen years they adopted it as the formula 
of their party, replacing it in 359 by the ‘ Dated Creed’ 
of Sirmium. Great disputes have arisen as to the 
character of the ‘ Council of the Dedication’, as this 
assembly is sometimes styled. Its canons were widely 
accepted, and Hilary of Poictiers, the Athanasius of 
the West, calls it “an assembly of saints”. Yet it was 
unquestionably composed of enemies of Athanasius, 
and its confessions of faith were intended to supplant 
the Creed of Nicaea. ‘This inconsistency may be ac- 
counted for by supposing that it was mainly composed 
of what may be termed orthodox opponents of the 
Homdousion, 1.e. men who were persuaded of the true 
Divinity of the Son, but did not realize that the accept- 
ance of the test-word was necessary in order to maintain 
the Catholic doctrine.” 


I. The creeds of the Council are to be found in Athanasius De 
Synodis, 22—25, the last chapter giving an account of how the fourth 
creed was drafted. For a discussion of the creeds see Gwatkin, of. czz., 
pp. 115 foll., and also in Socrates, H. #. 11. 10.  Bethune-Baker, 
Christian Doctrine, pp. 172 ff. At first sight it is hard to see why even 
the fourth creed should have been unacceptable, and it is only by a careful 
perusal that it is evident that the compilers of it have laboured to make its 
language closely resemble the Creed of Nicaea, and at the same time to 
leave abundant room for Arian evasion, Notice especially the words in the 
final anathema against those who say kal more jv xpdvos 7) alwy bre ovK Fy. 

2. To get rid of the difficulty of the high commendation of the 
canons of Antioch by Hilary of Poictiers (De Synodis, c. 32), the 
Council of Chalcedon, and Popes Zacharias and Nicholas I., two 
councils have been*assumed—one of fifty bishops which made canons, 
and one of thirty or forty which condemned Athanasius. (A/ams. I1., 
1305 note.) Hefele (of. czt., § 56 ad fin.) has some very wise remarks 


ix 


338 NEED OF A DEFINITE CREED.  [cu. xiv. 


It may perhaps be considered a subject for regret 
that a moderate creed like that of ‘the Dedication’ 
did not supersede the more definite formula of Nicaea. 
But the expression of such regret would betray an im- 
perfect apprehension of the spirit of the age. ‘The 
Church of the fourth century was bound to speak with 
no uncertain voice on a matter of such supreme im- 
portance as the question of the precise relationship 
of the Son to the Father. Both Athanasius and the 
genuine Arians recognized this and fought for a definite 
object; and the Eusebian party, in shrinking from 
pronouncing on the real point at issue, was certain to 
be crushed between the two real combatants! At the 
Council of the Dedication these wavering theologians 
were made the catspaw of the Arians, and time was 
_destined to shew that in defeating Athanasius they had 
ruined their own cause. But Athanasius was not yet 
suppressed, and the turn ‘of political events gave the 
great Alexandrian a splendid if transitory triumph. 
As the death of Constantine II. in a.p. 
Councilsof 340 had left Constans master of two-thirds 
Piiliprepelis of the empire, Constantius found himself 
A.D. 343. obliged to defer to his more powerful 
brother, who favoured the Nicene faith 
as received by the prelates of the undivided West. 
At the suggestion of Constans that the Eastern and — 
Western bishops should assemble for a conference, 
Constantius sent representatives from his dominions 
to meet the Western bishops at Sardica, the modern 
Sofia in Bulgaria. The Council marks an epoch 
in ecclesiastical history as the first occasion on which 
the difference between the Eastern and Western branches 
of the Church became apparent. The Westerns, ninety- 
five in number, were accompanied by Athanasius, 
Marcellus, and Asclepas, who, together with Hosius of 


about the conduct of the bishops, and concludes thus: “ Finally it must 
not be forgotten that, if the canons of the Antiochian Synod’ are 
to be spoken of as Camnones Sanctorum Patrum, and their second 
creed is said to be published by a Congregata Sanctorum, Synodus, still no 
one intended thereby to canonize the members of the Antiochian Synod as 
a body. If we understand the word ‘holy’ in the sense of the ancient 
Church as a title of honour, then a great part of the difficulty disappears.” 
1, Bethune-Baker, Christian Doctrine. p. 175. 


CH. XIV. ] ATHANASIUS ACQUITTED. 339 


Cordova, once the trusted adviser of Constantine, had 
come from the court of Constans. The Orientals, 
offended at the presence of the accused bishops, de- 
manded that they should not have seats at the Council, 
and, on their Western brethren declining to reject 
Athanasius and his friends as men labouring under a 
serious accusation, withdrew to Philippopolis within 
the dominions of Constantius. From this city they 
issued a very intemperate condemnation of the pro- 
ceedings at Sardica, and put forth as their creed the 
Arian formulary which had been drawn up after the 
conclusion of the Council of the Dedication at Antioch, 
adding to it anathemas condemning the system of 
Marcellus. The Sardican council in the meantime 
investigated the cases of Athanasius and Marcellus of 
Ancyra, and acquitted both bishops, accepting Mar- 
cellus’s explanation of his doctrines as satisfactory. 
It also passed the famous canons allowing deposed 
bishops to appeal to Julius, bishop of Rome, who had 
already shewn himself to be a most impartial judge 
in such matters. Constans sent two bishops, named 
Euphrates and Vincent, to Antioch to announce the 
decisions of the council to Constantius.} 
An attempt, as foolish as it was 
The Macrostich, criminal, on the part of Stephen,-hishop 
Athanasius Of Antioch, to throw discredit on the 
returnsto Sardican envoys, temporarily alienated 
Alexandria, . A bf be 
A.D. 346. Constantius from the Arianizing party, 
and in 344 another council was held at 
Antioch, which deposed Stephen for a vile plot against 
I. This council is placed by both Socrates (11. 20) and Sozomen (III. 
12) in the consulship of Rufinus and Eusebius, in the eleventh year after the 
death of Constantine the Great, viz. in A.D. 347. But the Festal Letters 
fix the date A.D. 343, Judex to Festal Letters, xv. The council was 
presided over by Hosius of Cordova, whose signature is followed by that of 
Julius of Rome by his presbyters Archidamus and Philoxenus. Athanasius, 
Hist. Arian. ad Monachos, c; 16. Theodoret, 11.6. Prof. Gwatkin has 
a valuable note on the date of the synod; see also Hefele, Counczls, 
§ 58. Canons 3, 4, and 7 (5 in the Greek) give deposed bishops the 
right of appealing to Julius bishop of Rome, and this fact has raised a 
threefold discussion : (1) whether the right of appeal was given for the first 
time to the Roman See by the council, or (2) whether the council merely 
confirmed the inherent right of the Popes, and (3) whether the meaning of 
the canons is not merely that the right of hearing appeals was given to 
Julius personally. 
Y2 


340 RETURN OF ATHANASIUS, _ [cu. x1v.. 


the character of Euphrates of Cologne. The same 
assembly drew up a fifth creed of Antioch, known, from 
its great length, as the ‘ Macrostich’, which vehemently 
condemned Marcellus of Ancyra and his follower 
Photinus, bishop of Sirmium.’ After this council Con- 
stantius relaxed his severity against the Athanasian 
party and made overtures to the bishop of Alexandria 
himself. As the intruder Gregory was dead, there was 
no further reason for Constantius to hinder Athanasius’s 
return to Alexandria, and after an interview with the 
Emperor the bishop was allowed to go back to his 
see. The populace poured out of the city to receive 
him, and he was escorted to his church with shouts 
of acclamation. It seemed as if the old democratic 
spirit had revived in the popular enthusiasm with 
which the Alexandrians welcomed back their bishop ; 
and from this time Athanasius was supported by his 
countrymen in his long contest with the imperial 
authority.? 


1. The treachery of Stephen is described by Athanasius in his 
Historia Arianorum ad Monachos,c. 20. Theodoret, 11. 7. It is said 
that Euphrates was subsequently deposed by a synod of Cologne for 
Arianism, but the genuineness of the Acts is much questioned. Hefele, 
§ 69. Socrates, 11. 19. Athanasius, de Synodzs, c. 26. The text of the 
Macrostich (called uaxpborixos €xbeots by Sozomen, H. £. 111, 1) is given 
in Hahn, Symdole, § 89. After reciting the fourth creed of Antioch, this 
creed, or rather thesis, shews: (1) That the terms dyévvyros and dvapyxos can 
only be applied to the Father ; (2) In refusing to acknowledge three Gods, 
it is not meant to deny that Christ is God, for He is Oeds éx Qeo0: (3) Those 
who say that the Word has no separate existence apart from the Father, or 
that his kingdom has beginning or end, are to be abhorred (SdeAvacdue8a), 
as the followers of Marcellus and Photinus (Zx«ore:vds, Athanasius ?) ; 
(4) A belief that the Son is like in all things to the Father is expressed ; 
(5) The Patripassians and Sabellians are condemned, as well as (6) those 
who say that the Father begat the Son by necessity and not by His purpose 
and will. (7) The creed ends by declaring the indissoluble union between 
the Father and the Son. The necessity for publishing this long creed is to 
convince the Western Church of the way in which the heterodox (meaning 
presumably Athanasius, whom they dare not name, and Marcellus) had 
misrepresented the language of the Oriental Christians. The language of 
this creed in many places recalls forcibly that of the Quecungue vult. It 
was an expansion of the Creed of the Dedication, the explanations being 
given to conciliate the Western Bishops. Bethune-Baker, Cé&ristian 
Doctrine, p. 176. 

2. Hist. Arian. ad Monachos, c. 21, says that Constantius felt 
compunction at the treatment of Euphrates by Stephen; in c. 25 the joy at 
the return of Athanasius is described. 


CH. xIV.] DEATH OF CONSTANS AND JULIUS. 34! 


For nearly ten years Athanasius re- 
ewe ten years mained at peace at Alexandria; during 
eace. State of : . ; 4 : 
Parties between Which period, however, Arian intrigues 
A.D. 346-356. were by no means idle, and it will be 
necessary to trace the steps by which 
Constantius was brought to consent to again remove 
Athanasius and to impose an Arian formula of belief 
on the Church. The previous contest had resulted in 
acceptance of the Creed of Nicaea by the Western Church, 
but the acquittal of Marcellus had led to its bishops 
having countenanced a misleading interpretation of the 
test-word. The Orientals, on the other hand, still saw 
more danger in the Sabellianism of Marcellus than in 
the Arianism of the Eusebians, and in their zeal to 
condemn his doctrines were prepared to be led into a 
repudiation of the Homdousion. ‘The first object of the 
Arianizing faction was, as formerly, to strike Athanasius 
in the vulnerable point of his friendship with Marcellus. 
The Western portion of the Empire was till 350 
under the guidance of the emperor Constans, a warm 
supporter of Athanasius; and till 352 the policy of the 
Church was directed by the sagacity of the great Roman 
prelate Julius. After the death of Constans the Western 
provinces were under the sway of the usurper Magnentius, 
whose defeat by the generals of Constantius at Mursa 
in 351, and again at Mount Seleucus in 353, made that 
emperor sole master of the Roman world. Julius was 
succeeded in the see of Rome by Liberius, a rash but 
irresolute man, whom events proved to be totally unfit 
to cope with the difficulties of the situation. 

Photinus, bishop of Sirmium, was the 
nie ecient first object of attack on the part of the 
OD se.” Oriental bishops. He undoubtedly held 

heretical opinions, but his condemnation 
did no small injury to the cause of Athanasius by 
creating an impression that the Nicene formula en- 
couraged Sabellianism. He had, as we have seen, 
already been anathematized at Antioch in 344, where 
the bishops with somewhat laboured playfulness had, 
according to Athanasius, styled him S'xotewos, the man 
of darkness, instead of ®wrewos, the man of light. 
Two Western synods had also pronounced against him, 


342 ATHANASIUS AGAIN ACCUSED.  [cuH. xiv. 


one at Milan about 345 and one held at his own city 
of Sirmium in 347. The bishop however managed to 
defy his opponents till the defeat of Magnentius in 351, 
in which year a synod met at Sirmium and deprived 
Photinus of his see. An appeal to the emperor Con- 
stantius only resulted in the recalcitrant prelate being 
driven into exile.’ 
sa arsenate After the overthrow of Magnentius, 
overcome in the Constantius, now master of the West, 
Westat having left his cousin, the Caesar Gallus, 
Arles ang a in nominal command of the Oriental 
er ’ provinces, was able to turn his attention 
to ecclesiastical questions. Valens, bishop of Mursa, 
had obtained great influence. by announcing to the 
Emperor, as he awaited the result of the battle against 
Magnentius with anxious trepidation, that the imperial 
troops had gained the victory. The assertion of Valens 
that an angel had brought him the news was readily 
believed, and he became the trusted adviser of Con- 
stantius. The Emperor was still further brought under 
Arian influence by his marriage with Eusebia, whose 
virtues did not prevent her attachment to anti-Nicene 
doctrine. After the final defeat of Magnentius the 
charges against Athanasius were renewed, and the 
Emperor’s mind prejudiced against the great Alexandrian 
by accusations of his having not only caused dissension 
between the brothers Constans and Constantius, but also 
of having supported the usurpation of Magnentius. At 
a synod at Arles, Vincent bishop of Capua and Marcellus 
of Campania, the representatives of Liberius bishop of 
Rome, were induced to sign a condemnation of Athan- 
asius on condition that the Arian heresy should be 
rejected in express terms. This condition remained 


1. The dates of the different synods by which Photinus was 
condemned are very uncertain. The D. C. #. (art. ‘ Photinus’) fixes the 
first Synod of Sirmium, on the authority of St. Hilary of Poictiers, in 349. 
Socrates (. £. 11. 29) gives an account of his condemnation after the 
enquiry held by Basil of Ancyra in 351. Hefele, Coumctls, §§ 71, 72. 
Hahn, Symbole, § 90. For the opinions of Photinus: Neander, Church 
History, 1v., pp. 93 foll. Photinus followed Paul of Samosata in making 
the évépyeca Spacrixh of the Logos imply merely its enlightening influence 
on the man Jesus. The best treatise on the whole subject is Zahn, 
Marcellus von Ancyra. : 


cH, xIv.| THIRD EXILE OF ATHANASIUS. 343 


unfulfilled; and Liberius, after indignantly repudiating 
the action of his legates, sent Lucifer of Calaris to 
Constantius to ask for another council. The Emperor 
granted the request of the Roman bishop, and in 355 
-one hundred Western and a few Eastern bishops 
met at Milan, where the Emperor was then residing. 
Constantius himself appeared as the accuser of Athan- 
asius, and only three bishops—Dionysius of Milan, 
Eusebius of Vercellae, and Lucifer of Calaris—had 
the courage to brave exile by resisting the imperial 
pleading. Liberius was despatched to Beroea in Thrace 
for his contumacy in refusing the Emperor’s presents 
sent by the hand of the chamberlain Eusebius; and 
the aged Hosius, president of the council of Nicaea, 
was banished to Sirmium.!' The Western bishops were 
awed into a repudiation of the cause of Athanasius 
and the Creed of Nicaea; and in the February of the 
following year, 356, the soldiers under Syrianus the 
praefect of Egypt surrounded Athanasius in the church of 
St. Theonas at Alexandria. The bishop, who escaped 
with difficulty, was placed beyond the reach of his 
enemies. An intruding bishop was established in 
Alexandria, whose previous life emphasised the difference 
between political Arianism and the cause of Athanasius. 
George of Cappadocia, the Arianizing occupant of the 
see, had passed his early days in the business of 
contracting for the provisioning of the Roman army, 
and had been convicted of fraudulent ORC Seen a 
The Synod of Milan and the thir 

Ga diaavat beiectinent! of Athanasius mark the 

the foesof§ triumph of the Eusebian party, which 

Athanasius. had opposed the adoption of the Homo- 
ousion. It had succeeded in getting rid of the chief 
supporter of the Nicene Creed and of the Creed itself. 
But the majority of this faction was not composed 


1. Hefele, Coumczls, §§ 74, 75. 

2. Athanasius, Afologia ad Constantium, c. 243 Apologia de Fuga, 
24. For George see Athanasius, 7st. Arian. ad Monachos, c. §1 and ¢. 75. 
Gibbon (chap. xxiii.) in a note says that ‘‘it is not absolutely certain but 
extremely probable” that this George became the patron saint of England. 
and, he might have added, the Megalo-Martyr of the Greek Calendax, 
D. C. B., art. ‘George (4)’, vol. 11., p. 640 a 


344 THE CREEDS OF SIRMIUM. _ [cH. xiv. 


of Arians, but of bishops who, while condemning 
Arianism, and at heart in agreement with Nicene 
doctrine, ‘disliked the word dmoovatos as unduly favour- 
able to Sabellianism. The events of the next few 


years tended to shew that there was no alternative. 


between the acceptance of the Nicene formula and 
the toleration of the teaching of Arius. Of the four 
parties into which the Church was divided—Homo- 
ousians, the supporters of Nicaea; Homoiousians or 
Semi-Arians,! who were ready to adopt the word ovcia, 
but not to allow the identity of the Son’s essence with 
that of the I'ather; Homoeans, who though Arians at 
heart desired to appear orthodox in language; and 
Anomoeans, or proclaimers of unblushing Arianism— 
only the first and last named could have any logical 
continuance. The other two had to decide whether they 
would fight under the banner of Nicaea or that of Arius. 
The Arians, having gained their point by the aid of the 
Eusebians, had no further use for these misguided 
Liberals, their object now being to induce the bishops 
to accept a formula which should have an orthodox 
sound but at the same time give countenance to any 
opinions which advanced Arians might advocate. The 
imperial residence was now fixed at Sirmium, which 


became, as Antioch had been some fifteen years before, 


a centre for the manufacture of confessions of faith. 
The fivst creed, including many 

The Creede of anathemas, shad already been put forth 
First Creed, 351; 2t Sirmium in 351, on the occasion 
of the deposition of Photinus, so that 

the Arian symbol, suggested by a council meeting 
Second Creed, 12 357 under the eye of the Emperor, 
or ‘Blasphemy is known as the second Sirmian Creed. 
of Simam’,? ‘The doctrines contained in this document 
ms" were avowedly Arian. The newly coined 
homoiousios was rejected together with the Athanasian 


1. Sozomen (111. 18) says that the ‘‘ followers of Eusebius and other 
bishops of the East, who were admired for their speech and life,” said that 
homooustos might be applied to created things like men and animals, but 
homotousios only to incorporeal things like God and the angels. Hefele, 
Councils, § 77. 

2. This name is given by Hilary, bp. of Poictiers. Bethune-Baker, 
Christian Doctrine, p. 180. 


CH. XIV.] SEMI-ARIANS ALARMED. 345 


homoousios, as equally unscriptural, and it was pro- 
nounced blasphemous to attempt to explain the gener- 
ation of the Son of God, because the prophet had said 
“Generationem Ejus quis enarrabit?”. The superiority 
of the Father and the subjection of the Son was 
also plainly declared. This bold avowal of Arianism 
was variously received. From Antioch, Eudoxius, 
after holding a synod in conjunction with Acacius of 
Caesarea, the successor of the learned but vacillating 
Eusebius, wrote congratulating Ursacius and Valens 
on having restored peace to the West.1 Great alarm, 
however, was caused by the fact that Eudoxius and 
Acacius were under the influence of the arch-heretic 
Aetius, who pushed Arianism to its only possible 
conclusion by declaring that, if the Son is not of one 
substance with the Father, He must be unlike Him; 
and the Eusebians in Asia, who from their shrinking 
from open Arianism were henceforth styled Semi- 
Arians, began to protest. Their leaders, Basil of 
Ancyra, Eustathius of Sebaste, and Eleusius of Cyzicus, 
hastened to Constantius and convinced the Emperor 
that the Church would never become united under 
a symbol like the second Creed of Sirmium.? Accord- 
ingly, at a fresh synod held at Sirmium, the so-called 
third Creed, which had been previously drawn up 
at an assembly at Ancyra held at the invitation of 
bishop Basil shortly before the Easter of 358, was 
accepted.® 


I, The second creed is given twice by Hilary: in his De Synodis, 
§ 11, where it is headed Hxemplum blasphemiae apud Sirmium per 
Ostum (bishop of Cordova) e¢ Potomium conscrip~tae, and in his Adversus 
Constantium, in which he styles it De/tramenta Osti et incrementa Ursacit 
e¢ Valentis. Hahn, Symbole,§ 91. It is found in Greek in Athanasius, 
De Synodis, § 28, and in Socrates, 11. 30. The use of both duoovcrov and 
duoovctov is declared to be unsuitable in speaking of the Son. Sozomen, 
IV. 12—I15. 

2. Sozomen, IV. 13, 14. 

The so-called Third Creed of Sirmium is, according to Hahn (of. 
ett., § 162), the ‘ Creed of the Dedication’, which is affirmed in a synodical 
letter given in Epiphanius, Haer. 73. It consists of a long exposition of 
the Trinity, and eighteen anathemas (Hahn has nineteen). It implies that 
ducovor.os is Sabellian in sense by making it equivalent to ravroovevos. 
Gwatkin, Studies of Arianism, p. 161. Hefele, Councils, § 80. Mr. 
Bethune-Baker, however, calls the ‘Dated Creed’ the Third Creed of 
Sirmium ; Christian Doctrine, p. 183. 


346 LIBERIUS YIELDS. — [CH. XIV. 

To this period belongs the sad story of 
the fall of the venerable Hosius of Cor- 
dova and of the Roman bishop Liberius, 
The former, after a life spent in the service of the 
Church, was, in extreme old age, compelled by torture 
to renounce opinions to the defence of which he had 
consecrated the energies of a life-time, and he retired 
to his native Spain, to end a glorious career of usefulness 
in inglorious penitence. Liberius also returned to Rome 
to find a rival bishop, named Felix, in his place. What 
creed he signed is not known with certainty—possibly 
it was the Third Creed of Sirmium, which was based 
on the Antiochene Creed of the Dedication and the 
Sirmian condemnation of Photinus.! It was now the 


Fall of Hosius 
and Liberius. 


1. There is little doubt that Hosius signed the Second Creed of 
Sirmium, issued in 357, but the case of Liberius is not so clear. Theodoret 
(Hest. Eccl. ii. 14), Socrates (Hist. Accl. ii. 37), and Sulpicius Severus 
(Hest. Sacr. ii. 39) record the return of Liberius from exile without mention- 
ing that he signed anything, which forms some presumption against the 
supposition of his having subscribed to so distinctive a creed as the Second of 
Sirmium. Sozomen (7st. Eccl. iv. 15) records that he was summoned by 
the Emperor to Sirmium, after the Council of Ancyra, and there signed a 
s*ompilation of the decrees against Paul of Samosata and Photinus together 
with a formula of faith drawn up at Antioch at the consecration of the 
church ; he then goes on to say that Liberius drew up a confession of faith 
‘n which he pronounced an anathema on all who denied the likeness of the 
Son to the Father. Athanasius twice plainly refers to the fall of Liberius 
Vist. Arian., § 41, and Aol. contra Arian., § 89); though he speaks of 
fim with very great respect and pity. It is possible that both these 
passages are later additions, but there is no reason to doubt that they were 
added by Athanasius himself. Jerome (de Vir. //lustr., c. 97) speaks plainly 
vf Liberius having signed a heretical document. Hilary (Con. Constant. 
fmp., c. ii.) and Faustinus (Preface to Z2b. Precum) seem to refer to 
a definite fall under compulsion, but their language is not clear. Parts 
of the correspondence of Liberius on the subject have been preserved in 
Hilary’s writings (Opp. Frag. vi.) together with Hilary’s comments on 
them; and these clearly speak of a signature to a heretical document 
which is described by Hilary as ‘ perfidia Ariana’. From this it would be 
quite certain that Liberius signed the second Sirmian formula, but 
for the genuineness of the fragment being doubtful; Hefele (Counczls, 
bk. v., § 81) rejects it, but his arguments are answered by Renouf (App. 
to Eng. Trans. of Hefele’s Councz/s) and Gwatkin (Studzes of Arianism, 
v., note F.), both of whom suggest that the list of bishops, which seems not 
to agree with the rest and so to throw a doubt upon the genuineness of the 
whole, may be spurious. It appears, then, that Liberius signed a col- 
lection of documents drawn up at Sirmium in 358, though it is not clear 
whether this included the second creed of Antioch (Gwatkin) or the fourth 
(Hefele). Hefele (doc. czt.) thinks that this was the only document signed 
by him, and that at the same time he denounced any who denied the 


CH. XIV.) POSITION OF THE SEMI-ARIANS. 347 


turn of the Acacian or Homoean party to propose the 
ns fourth Sirmian creed, known—by the 
Creed, 359, Preface declaring that it was drawn up 
on the eleventh day before the Kalends 
of June in the consulship of Flavius Eusebius and 
Flavius Hypatius—as the ‘Dated Creed’. This creed 
declared our Lord to be similar (@wotos) to the Father 
who has begotten Him, but left a convenient loop-hole 
for Arian evasion in the words «ata tas ypadds, and 
forbids the employment of the word ovcia as un: 
scriptural.} 
Patty ee At this juncture Basil of Ancyra 
Ariminum ana @nd George of Laodicaea, alarmed at the 
Seleucia andthe progress of avowed Arianism, published 
Creed of Mice. a minute on the word odcia which has 
been described as “a practical surrender 
at discretion” by the Semi-Arians to the Homdéousian 
party.2 But Acacius and his friends were more than a 
match for the wavering Semi-Arians, and also, as the 
sequel shews, for the Homd6ousians when bereft of the 
powerful support of Athanasius. Constantius resolved 
to settle the religious question by two simultaneous 
councils. ‘~The Westerns were summoned to Ariminum, 
and a smaller assembly of Eastern bishops met at 
Seleucia. Valens and Ursacius, who undertook the 


likeness of the Son to the Father, so that though he rejected the 
Nicene formula he still clung to the orthodox Faith. Newman, who 
discusses the whole question of the Sirmi.: Councils (Avzans, p. 322, and 
App. Ill.), agrees with this, though he acknowledges that at first sight 
Liberius appears to have signed the second Sirmian formula. On the 
other hand, Renouf (/oc. cz¢.) argues that the language of Athanasius, 
Faustinus, and Jerome, not to mention Hilary, clearly shews that the 
document signed was distinctly heretical. So also Gwatkin (/oc. ct.) 
maintains that besides this formula Liberius signed the Second Creed of 
Sirmium ; as does also Mr. Barmby (D. C. &., art. ‘ Liberius’), except 
that he allows some doubt as to whether it was the first or the second 
Sirmian formula. [I am indebted for this Note to the Rev. C. E. 
Garrard, M.A.] 

1. Athanasius, De Synodis, § 8. Valesius says it was drawn up by 
Mark of Arethusa; Hahn, Symdole, § 93, note 581. See Nicene and Post- 
Nicene Fathers, Athanasius, Prolegomena, c. ii. § 8, p. liv., for an 
excellent discussion by Bishop Robertson of the word Soros as applied to 
the Son. P 

2. Gwatkin, Arzanism, pp. 168, 169. 

3. The council was originally summoned to meet at Nicomedia, 
but its assembly was prevented by an earthquake; Nicaea was next 


348 TRIUMPH OF ARIANISM. {CH. XIV. 


management of the Italian synod, found the bishops 
firmly attached to the Creed of Nicaea. In vain did 
they attempt to convince the council of the expediency 
of abandoning the omodousion; the only reply they 
received was that “the business of the council was not 
to define what the faith was but to confound its oppo- 
nents.” The bishops then excommunicated Valens 
and Ursacius, and addressed a letter to the Emperor 
informing him that nothing but the Nicene Creed 
could give peace to the Church. Constantius, who 
had started on 18 June, 359, for the army employed 
against the Persians, received the deputation from the 
council coldly, and ordered it to retire to Adrianople, 
but welcomed Ursacius and Valens with honour. The 
Emperor now decided to withdraw the obnoxious 
‘Dated Creed’ in favour of one drawn up at Nicé 
in Thrace, as it was hoped that the auspicious name of 
the place would recall the memory of the great council 
held by his father. The new confession of Nicé was, 
however, more opposed in spirit to the old Creed of 
Nicaea than many of its predecessors.? To it, however, 
the deputies of the council were induced to consent 
whilst at Adrianople, and the praefect Taurus was 
ordered to enforce it on the bishops at Ariminum. 
Threats, misrepresentations, and entreaties were em- 
ployed to induce them to subscribe to the new creed. 
They were told that their Oriental brethren had 
rejected the word ovcia: Valens, who declared him- 
self to be no Arian, begged the recalcitrant bishops, 
among whom was Phoebadius of Agen, author of a 
work against the Sirmian creed of 357, to subscribe 


selected, but the Arianizers, fearing that a general council might prove 
unmanageable, persuaded the Emreror to hold two simultaneous synods, 
Sozomen, Iv. 16; Athanasius, De Synedis,§ 7. The ‘ Dated Creed’ was 
drawn up to be submitted to both assemblies. Seleucia was in Isauria 
and was called Dedevxela rpaxeta. Hefele, of. czt., § $2. 

1. Athanasius, De Synodis, § 10 ; Socrates, II. 37. 

2. Socrates (Joc. cz#.) and Sozomen (IV. 19) say the Arianizers hoped 
that the less learned bishops would be misled into confusing Nicé with 
Nicaea. The creed of Nicé was a revision of the Dated Creed. Among 
other changes, it omitted the date, forbad the use of drécracts as well as o 
ovcia, and omitted the words card wdvra from the clause duoov de Adyouer 
roy Tiow ry llarpi xara wdvra. 


CH. xIv.] EFFECT OF DEATH OF CONSTANTIUS. 349 


in the interests of peace. Winter was approaching, and 
one by one the bishops yielded, till at last the creed of 
Nicé was signed by the whole synod. Well may St. 
Jerome remark of this conclusion of the assembly at 
Ariminum, “The world groaned and wondered to find 
itself Arian.”? 
A similar scene was enacted at Seleucia, 
The daa where the Orientals declared themselves 
Seleucia, satisfied with their favourite Creed of the 
Dedication. Here Acacius and Eudoxius 
played the same part as Ursacius and Valens had done 
at Ariminum, by repudiating Arianism in the person of 
Aétius, who was exiled. After this the deputies sent by 
the synod to the Emperor signed the formula of Nicé, 
which was ordered to be sent to all bishops; and all, 
including even Dianius of Caesarea and the father 
of St. Gregory Nazianzen, subscribed.2, The victorious 
faction followed up their success at Constantinople in 
360, where the Semi-Arian leaders were deposed, Mace- 
donius from Constantinople, Eustathius from Sebaste, 
and Basil from Ancyra. 
As is frequently the case, a man con- 
temptible alike in character and abilities 
ad by a crafty and unscrupulous policy 
succeeded where many abler men would have failed. 
Constantius had induced the bishops to assent to a creed 
which they detested, and had given the Church an 
external unity under an Arian symbol. The Emperor 
was still a comparatively young man, when after long 
years of patient intrigue he had succeeded, with the 
aid of Acacius, in forcing his creed upon the unwilling 
Church. But in the hour of his triumph Constantius 
heard that the legions of Gaul had pronounced in favour 
of his cousin Julian, and on 3 November, 361, death 
overtook him in the midst of preparations to meet his 
rival. The death of the last son of Constantine is a 
very important event in ecclesiastical history. From 
the edict of Milan to the Acacian synod of Constan- 
tinople in 360, the policy of making the Christian 


Death of 
Constantius. 


1. Ingemuit totus orbis et Arianum se esse miratus est. (Adv. Lucz- 
Jerianos, c. 19.) 
2. Socrates, 11. 40; Hefele, Counczls, § 82. 


350 -—«S*~PLANS OF CONSTANTIUS FAIL.  [cu. xiv, 


Church a department of the Empire had been instinc- 
tively, if not deliberately, pursued. The real principle 
at stake in the great struggle was not evident to the 
combatants themselves. To them it appeared to be a 
most important, but at the same time a very intricate, 
theological question; but had Constantius lived, and 
continued to enjoy the victory secured by Acacius and 
Valens over Athanasius, it would have been no mere 
triumph of speculative error. The final establishment 
of the Creed of Nicé would have signified that the 
Church, unmindful of her divine origin, had surrendered 
herself completely to the will of the Emperor. The 
calm which Constantius would have secured for her 
would have been the calm of death. But the Church 
of Christ was not destined to share the fate of the 
decaying empire, the fall of which she was to survive 
in order to create modern civilization out of its ruins. 
It may be well regarded, moreover, as providential that 
Constantine had looked coldly upon Athanasius, and 
that Constantius had hated him; for these emperors, 
by loyally assisting in making the Creed of Nicaea a 
living power in the Church, might have done a far 
greater injury to the cause of Truth by persecuting for 
its sake, than they did by opposing it. Athanasius was 
undoubtedly incapable either of the baseness to which 
the Eusebians had stooped, or of the trickery of Acacius 
and Valens; but he was spared their temptations. 
Instead of having to force the Creed of Nicaea upon an 
unwilling Church, he had to triumph over misrepre- 
sentation and calumny and to prove the sincerity of his 
convictions by his sufferings. Twenty years, however, 
were destined to elapse before the final triumph of the 
Creed of Nicaea, during which the government in the 
Eastern provinces supported the Homoean Arians. The 
tragic reign of Julian is an important interlude between 
the two great periods of the struggle, since throughout 
the brief but most interesting reign of this emperor 
the Christians found that not merely a particular 
doctrine, but the very existence of their religion, was 
endangered. 


CHAPTER XV. 


JULIAN AND THE PAGAN REACTION. 


Ae _ [HE reign of Constantius was ruinous 
reign of alike to the Church, which had been rent 
Constantius. by faction, and to the Empire, which 
had been enfeebled by oppression. ‘The 

ecclesiastical policy of the Emperor had set house 
against house and divided families, and the disorgan- 
ization of the public service by the frequent journeys 
of the bishops from council to council is mentioned 
by the pagan historian as illustrative of the maladmin- 
istration of the period.’ The ecclesiastical mistakes 
of Constantius shewed that it was no easy matter to 
unite the Church and Empire without both suffering 
injury, and his legislation had grievously offended the 
pagans, among whom were some of the noblest and 
wealthiest of his subjects.2— It was natural therefore 
that an attempt should be made to reverse all that had 


1, Ammian. Xx1. 16: ‘‘Quae progressa fusius aluit concertatione 
verborum, ut catervis antistitum jumentis publicis ultro citroque discurrenti- 
bus per synodos (quas appellant) dum ritum omnem ad suum trahere 
conantur rei vehiculariae concideret nervos.”” Gibbon renders the sense 
of this passage thus :—‘‘ Constantius cherished and propagated, by verbal 
disputes, the differences which his vain curiosity had excited. The 
highways were covered with troops of bishops, galloping from every side 
to the assemblies which they call synods; and while they laboured to 
reduce the whole sect to their own particular opinions, the public establish- 
ment of the posts was almost ruined by their hasty and repeated journeys.” 
Decline and Fall, ch. xxi. 

2. Constantius acted towards Paganism in a contradictory manner. 
On the one hand, in the Theodosian code, xv1.t. 10, ]. 2, and XVI. t. 10, 1. 5. 
there are laws of his promulgated in 341 and 353 commanding all sacrifices 
to cease. Beugnot (Hist. du Paganisme, p. 142) says that these laws may 
be regarded as spurious, and Gibbon (Decne and Fall, ch. xxi.) remarks, 
‘*There is the strongest reason to believe that this formidable edict was 
either composed without being published, or was published without being 
executed.” M. Gaston Boissier (722 du Paganisme, vol. 1., p. 77) finds 


352 A SAD CHILDHOOD. — (cH. xv. 


been done by the house of Constantine, by placing 
Paganism once more in the ascendant. ‘The patronage 
which Constantius had extended to the Church had 
done so much more harm than good, not only to the 
Empire but to Christianity, that its withdrawal was 
an actual benefit to true religion. ‘The manner in which 
this was effected is one of the most remarkable incidents 
in history. 

The sole survivors of the collateral 
branches of the family of Constantine 
were Gallus and Julian, the sons of Julius 
Constantius, who bore the title of ‘The Patrician’. 
The former was only thirteen years of age, the latter 
was but six, or according to Socrates (iii. 1) eight, when 
Constantine’s relatives fell victims to the soldiery in 337. 
Julian’s mother, Basilina, was a member of the Anician 
house, the noblest of the great Roman families, and a 
relation of Eusebius, bishop of Constantinople." The 
two royal youths had been saved by the efforts of the 
Arianizing bishop Mark of Arethusa, and were protected 
by Constantius, by whom Julian was entrusted to the 
care of Eusebius, then bishop of Nicomedia. Mardonius, 
a eunuch of Scythian birth, who had been in the 
household of Julian’s family, was made tutor to the 
young prince. Julian in his Misopogon has left us a 
picture of the miseries of his early education. Mardonius 
was a harsh master, a precisian and a martinet; the 
child was debarred from the pleasures natural to his 
age and station, and from the society of others of his 
own age. Julian’s unhappy childhood may account 
for the development of his peculiar character, and for 
his desertion of Christianity.2 Both Julian and Gallus 


Education of 
Julian. 


it difficult to reject the law, which in his opinion was not so much a formal 
enactment as a vague threat by which the Emperor hoped to drive waverers 
into the Church. On the other hand, the pagan apologist Symmachus in 
the days of Gratian praises the toleration of Constantius (4. x.), and 
Ammianus (XVI. 10) says that Constantius on the occasion of his visit to 
Rome in A.b. 355 was not offended by the sight of the temples and altars, 

1. Rendall, Zhe Emperor Julian, p. 37. 

2. Yet Julian had very pleasant memories of the time spent on a pro- 
perty in Bithynia left him by his grandmother. This he presented to his 
friend Evagrius, and in the letter giving him the estate Julian speaks of the 
gardens, springs, and groves as reminding him of the happy days of his 


CH. xv.] GALLUS. 353 


were most carefully trained in the Christian religion. 
Constantius shewed much solicitude for their spiritual 
welfare, and seems to have arranged that they should 
be baptized, long before he himself submitted to that 
indispensable rite.? 

Julian had hitherto resided at Constantinople, but 
now, at the age of thirteen years, he was sent with his 
brother Gallus into partial captivity at the castle of 
Macellum, an ancient palace of the kings of Cappadocia. 
Gallus was very different in character from his brother 
Julian. His disposition was fierce and intractable, and 
his naturally unamiable temper was aggravated by the 
jealous surveillance and constant espionage to which he 
and his brother were subjected.? Julian, on the contrary, 
was of a somewhat dreamy and poetical temperament, 
and, as he soon displayed a decided taste for literature 
and study, his secluded life appeared to be rather 
qualifying him for a professorial chair than to be 
fitting him to play a practical part in life. | 

_ Julian soon lost his brother, the only 
companion of his solitude, and was left to 
the care of servantsand spies. Constantius, 
after the revolt of Magnentius, feeling the burthen of 
the entire empire too heavy for endurance, appointed 
Gallus as Caesar over the five great dioceses of the 
Eastern prefecture (March 5th, 351), fixing his residence 
at Antioch, and marrying him to Constantia, the 
daughter of the great Constantine. It soon became 
evident that the Caesar and his wife were equally 
unworthy of the charge committed to them; but the 


Gallus 
made Caesar. 


boyhood. £7. 46. Mr. Glover (Life and Letters in the Fourth Century, 
p- 50) attributes Julian’s excellent morality to the influence of Mardonius. 
**On a beaucoup remarqué la tendresse avec laquelle Julien parle de 
Mardonius son premier maitre,” says M. Gaston Boissier, La Fin du 
Paganisme, vol. 1., p. 107. 

I. Julian, AZsopogon, 351 c. Theodoret, . Z. 111. 1. Sozomen, 
v. 2. It is nowhere, however, directly recorded that Julian was baptized, 
though Gregory Naz. implies that he was. Gregory (Iv. 23) says that both 
Gallus and Julian were enrolled among the clergy. The ‘Readers’, 
however, at Alexandria were not necessarily baptized. (Socr. v. 22.) As 
however the historian says they had to be fully baptized elsewhere, Julian 
had probably received baptism. 

2. Rendall (of. c7t., p. 40) quotes Ammian. xXIVv., who says Gallus was 
as unlike to Julian as Domitian was to Titus. 


Zz 


354 EXECUTION OF GALLUS. [CH. Xv. 


manner in which the ruin of Gallus was contrived shews” 
the cruel and cautious disposition of Constantius in its 
worst colours.! 

Till Magnentius was thoroughly crushed the Au- 
gutus allowed the Caesar to remain undisturbed; and 
it was not till 354 that a commission, consisting of 
Domitian the praefect of the East and Montius the 
quaestor, was sent to enquire into the administration 
of the provinces entrusted to Gallus. Stung by their 
insolent behaviour, the Caesar assembled the populace 
of Antioch, to whom his misgovernment cannot have 
been wholly distasteful, and appealed to them for 
protection. Both quaestor and praetorian praefect fell 
victims to the rage of the mob, indignant at the 
treatment to which the Caesar had been subjected. Con- 
stantius bided his time, and allowing Gallus to think 
that he was forgiven, gradually withdrew the veteran 
legions from the East, and sent flattering letters to 
the Caesar inviting him to visit him as a colleague. 
Gallus fell into the trap. Instead of proclaiming 
himself Augustus and committing his fortunes to the 
decision of war, he started to visit Constantius. He 
began his journey with pomp, and celebrated games 
in the circus at Constantinople. At Adrianople the 
infatuated Caesar was ordered to proceed with only 
a few attendants. On his journey westward the toils 
gradually closed round him. At Petovio in Pannonia 
he was arrested by the general Barbatio and stripped 
of the ensigns of his rank. He was thence sent to Pola 
in Istria, and closely examined, on the subject of his 
administration, by his enemy, the eunuch Eusebius. 
Constantius, on reading the depositions of his minister, 
had no hesitation in condemning his cousin to death, 
and Gallus was ignominiously beheaded. That he 
deserved his fate is certain, but the cowardly treachery 
of Constantius in thus luring him to his doom cannot 
be palliated, and it made a deep impression on the 
brother of the murdered Caesar.? 


1. Ammianus (bk. x1v.) describes Constantia, the wife of Gallus, 
ws the author of his crimes and misfortunes. Gibbon, Decline and Fall, 
ch, xix. 

2. Julian, Ap. ad Athentenses. 


CH. xv.] HELLENIC TASTES OF JULIAN. 355 


In the meantime Julian had been 
Julian attracted ailowed to reside, first at Constantinople, 
Hellenism. and afterwards, when the jealous emperor 
dreaded the presence of the royal youth 
in the capital, at Nicomedia. He studied rhetoric under 
Hecebolius at both places, but his master was ordered 
to keep his pupil from listening to the dangerously 
fascinating lectures of Libanius. Julian however read 
the discourses he was not permitted to hear, and was 
delighted by their eloquence. The party of Hellenism 
seem to have already decided to make so promising a 
disciple as Julian their own. Everything contributed 
to their success. Julian, prejudiced against the religion 
of Constantius and his uncongenial guardians, was 
attracted to Hellenism alike by his ambitions and 
studies. The fame of Aedesius first attracted him to 
Pergamus. ‘The aged philosopher advised Julian to seek 
wisdom from his favourite pupils, Eusebius and Chrys- 
anthius.t These teachers artfully stimulated the young 
man’s desire for further knowledge, and with apparent 
reluctance allowed him to extort from them the inform- 
ation that a certain Maximus had been able to obtain 
signs of approval from the goddess Hecate, who had 
smiled on him in her temple. (a.p. 351.)? Julian sought 
Maximus and was initiated by him into the mysteries. 
It is possible that at this period he apostatized, though 
he still openly professed Christianity. At any rate, his 
heathen proclivities had become apparent, to the great 
distress of Gallus, a Christian by conviction as well as 
by profession. The Caesar sent Aetius, the famous Arian, 
to his brother, to confirm his faith; and Julian, too 
prudent to rouse the suspicion of Constantius, shaved 
his head, wore the garb of a monk, acting as a reader 
in the church. It was many years before he dared to 
throw off the mask and declare his real belief. 

On the death of Gallus in 354 Julian 
was ordered to Milan. For months his 
life hung in the balance. Constantius was at the height 
of his power. He was tyrannizing over the Church at 


Julian at Milan. 


1. Rendall, of. cz#., p. 50. 
2. Harnack in Herzog’s Realencyclopadie, See also Allard, Julien 
? Apostat. 


356 JULIAN A STUDENT. [cH. xv. 


Milan, and Julian doubtless witnessed the unworthy 
intrigues of the Arianizing bishops at that disgraceful 
synod! The treatment he experienced at the hands of 
Constantius intensified the hatred of Julian for his 
cousin; his life was in constant danger, and he had to 
simulate affection for one whom he regarded as the 
murderer of his brother, and whom he suspected of 
having caused the extermination of his family. Julian 
found in the Empress Eusebia a true friend, as she 
persuaded her husband -to allow him to go to Athens 
to prosecute his studies. 
Keni: For six months Julian enjoyed the 
first period of happiness in his life; he 
seemed in some respects born to adorn an university.? 
Among men of real genius Julian was able to shine, for 
Basil, afterwards the great bishop of Caesarea, then the 
most favoured pupil of Libanius, and Gregory of Nazi- 
anzum, the Christian poet-father, were among his asso- 
ciates. The latter has left a portrait of Julian as he 
appeared at Athens. It is the sketch of a man occasionally 
seen at the present time in a place of learning—an awk- 
ward, absent student, unsightly in appearance and gauche 
in manner—a man whose life has been spent in study, 
unused to or contemptuous of the decencies of life. We 
see his nervous manner, his restless gait, the twitching 
of his shoulders, his head nodding as he walked. We 
hear of his harsh peals of laughter, the irrelevant 
questions he sometimes addressed to a companion in © 
the street, now stopping abruptly, now turning suddenly 
to speak to his friend. The prophetic Gregory saw in 
the unsightly student the apostate emperor: but ordinary 
men must have considered that the brilliant scholar, 
whose awkwardness attracted attention, was fitted to 
be nothing but an eccentric professor. But neither 
Gregory nor anybody else could have suspected that 
within five years this odd student would have established 
a military reputation worthy of the greatest of Roman 


1. De Broglie, L’Lglise et 7Empire, ut., pp. 258 and 284. Rendall, 
op. ctt., p. 55. 

2. Julian in his Letter to the Athenians calls Athens the hearth of 
his mother (él rv rijs unrpds éoriav), Rendall, p. 56. 

3. Gregory Nazianzen, Orat. Vv. 23. Socrates, 111. 23. Theod., If]. I 


CH. Xv.]— JULIAN IN GAUL. 357 


generals. During his sojourn at Athens, Julian made 
another step in apostasy by being initiated into the 
Eleusinian mysteries. 

As affairs were too serious for Con- 
stantius to do without the assistance 
of a colleague, Julian was summoned to 
Milan, and on 6 November, 355, declared Caesar. 
Helena, the youngest daughter of Constantine, was 
given to him for wife, and a household suitable to 
his dignity was formed for him. But he was not a 
free agent. Constantius, incapable of trusting anybody, 
bound his colleague with a chain of minute instructions, 
encompassed him with spies, and sent him to Gaul to 
conduct a dangerous war, without authority to act on 
his own responsibility.! Julian saw his danger, and as 
he passed the threshold of the palace he was heard 
to repeat the words of Homer— 


Julian sent to 
Gaul as Caesar. 


E\\aBe wopdipeos Odvaros Kal uotpa Kparaiy.2 (72, v. 83.) 
Him purple death laid hold of and stern fate. 


On his arrival in Gaul, Julian found the land a prey 
to the barbarous Germans who were devastating the 
country, while the generals appointed by Constantius 
were either incompetent, or unwilling to assist the 
Caesar for fear of the displeasure of the Augustus. 
Julian reorganized the army, and drove the barbarians 
beyond the Rhine. Having thus freed Gaul from her 
invaders, he devoted himself to the restoration of the 
prosperity of the country, and to relieving the inhabit- 
ants from the cruel oppression of excessive taxation. 
He established himself at Lutetia Parisiorum, then a 
small town on an island in the Seine, of which he 
speaks with great affection in after days, contrasting 
the simplicity of the life of its inhabitants with the 
effeminate luxury of Antioch.’ 


1. Mr. Glover says that it was not possible to deal otherwise with 
one so inexperienced as Julian. Lzfe and Letters in [Vth Century, p. 55. 

2. Gibbon, ch. xix. WD. C. &., art. ‘Julian’, p. 495 b. Ammian. 
Kv.. 8,17: 

3. érvyxavov ey xemudtwv mepl thy dirnv Aovreriay, dvoudtovar 3 
otrws of KedXrot trav Ilapiclwv rhv modlyynv? éorw & ov peyddn vijoos 
éykemmévn TH worayo, Kal adrhv Kik\y wacav Td Telxos KaTadapuBdvet, 
Evdivas éx’ aurhv dpdorépwbev eiadyovot yépupat x.7.r.  Miésopogon, 340 D. 


358 DEATH OF CONSTANTIUS. [CH. xv. 


; i The jealousy, or perhaps the mis- 
are ater fortunes, of Constantius interrupted the 
successful career of Julian in Gaul. In 
360 the Persian war demanded more troops for the 
defence of the eastern frontier, and Constantius sent 
orders to Julian to despatch his best legions to the East. 
The Caesar obeyed the commands of his superior with 
reluctance, knowing well that the abandonment of 
Gaul by the flower of his army meant a renewal of the 
incursions of the barbarians. The inhabitants viewed 
the departure of the legions with despair, and the 
soldiers were unwilling to leave their homes for a 
distant campaign in the East. A mutiny took place, 
and the army saluted Julian by the title of Augustus. 
The Caesar rebuked the zeal of his soldiers, who 
threatened him with death if he did not accept the 
proffered honour. The very fact that the army had 
proclaimed Julian Augustus was enough to make 
Constantius his implacable foe; and, as acceptance of 
the dangerous honour made but little difference in the 
heinousness of the offence, Julian consented to assume 
the title. He tried to avert civil war by a letter to 
Constantius respectfully begging him to confirm the 
decision of the army.! But it seemed inevitable that 
the question should be decided by an appeal to arms. 
Julian celebrated the feast of the Epiphany in January, 
361, at Vienne. ‘This was his last act of hypocrisy. 
From henceforth he declared himself an open and 
avowed Pagan. His rapid march from Gaul to Illyria 
belongs properly to the secular history of the Empire.? 
Julian took up his abode at Sirmium and reorganized 
the provinces of Illyria and Dalmatia, before prose- 
cuting the war; but on November 3, 361, Constantius 
i died at Mopsucrenae, and Julian was sole 
mei emperor. He heard the news as he 
crossed into Thrace. War was no longer 
necessary; Julian, as the last representative of the 
Flavian house, having been nominated Augustus by 
the deceased emperor on his death-bed. 


1. Ammianus Marcellinus (xvii. 28) says that Julian sent a 
threatening letter to Constantius with the more conciliatory epistle. 
2. It is related with great spirit in Gibbon, ch. xxii. 


cH. Xv.) RETRENCHMENT AND REFORM. 359 


Julian entered Constantinople on December 11, 
361, amid the universal enthusiasm of the people. 
‘Themistius the famous orator had written to welcome 
him to the capital, and Julian replied in the language 
of a philosopher, declaring his preference for a life of 
meditation to one of active labour as a sovereign. 
One of his first acts was to appoint a scholar and a 
soldier as consuls for 362. Mamertinus was an orator 
and a poet; Nevitta a barbarian officer, whose nomin- 
ation was intended to gratify the numerous soldiers 
enlisted from beyond the frontiers of the empire. The 
Emperor’s treatment of his consuls shewed how greatly 
he prized the forms of the ancient Republic. He allowed 
his imperial dignity to be effaced for the moment before 
the majesty of the consular power, and with ostenta- 
tious humility paid a fine to the treasury for having 
pronounced the emancipation of a slave in his own 
name instead of that of the consul who was present. 
He harangued the Senate of Constantinople and sought 
their advice, and did his best to act the part of an 
officer of the Republic, of which he was in reality 
absolute master. These amiable follies, however, might 

cause a smile, but they did not seriously 
peace of injure so distinguished a warrior as Julian 

in the public estimation. Nor was he 
content with playing a part. With the same vigour 
with which he had reorganized Gaul, Julian set himself 
to purify the corruptions of the imperial court. The 
numerous Officials, the eunuchs, spies, cooks, and 
barbers, who had preyed on the public in the days of 
Constantine and Constantius, were dismissed with 
contempt, and palace retrenchment was accompanied 
by measures of financial reform throughout the Empire. 
A vast number of beneficent laws were passed to re- 
strict the oppression of the tax collectors. Indiscrimi- 
nate exemptions from the decurionate were removed, 
and only really deserving persons were henceforth to 
be excused from that unpopular office. Nothing was 


1. Gibbon, ch. xxii. ‘*The emperor on foot marched before their 
(the consuls’) litters; and the gazing multitude admired the image of 
ancient times, or secretly blamed the conduct which, in their eyes, 
degraded the majesty of the purple.” 


360 INCONSISTENT PHILOSOPHERS,  [CH. xv. 


more remarkable than the amount of work accomplished 
by the new emperor, who lived the life of an ascetic 
philosopher, despised all luxuries, and denied himself 
the hours of needful repose in order that he might 
perform the military, legislative, and literary duties he 
imposed on himself as emperor, chief magistrate, and 
philosopher,’ 

But if Julian was frugal in his personal 
expenses, he was lavish in his patronage 
of learning. Letters were sent to the 
philosophers inviting them to court, and they appeared 
in swarms to partake of the imperial bounty. But 
to the disgust of their patron these men of wisdom, 
notably Maximus, whose spiritual communings with 
the unseen world had so impressed the youthful Julian, 
were instantly perverted by the atmosphere of the court, 
and forgot their philosophy in order to enjoy the 
luxuries of their new position. A few clung to their 
ragged garments and abstained from shaving, but lived 
in debauchery. Julian protested and wrote against 
these false cynics, but in vain. He himself was the 
only one who lived the life of a consistent philosopher. 
It is but just to say that Libanius refused to come to 
the court, and remained proof against the supplications 
of his illustrious pupil. Julian had included Christian 
men of letters in his invitation; he begged Basil to 
come and speak with him “as friend to friend”. 
The heretic Aetius, who accepted his invitation, was 
rewarded with an estate. The work of vengeance on 
the base ministers of the late emperor was not forgotten 
amid the reforms of Julian. Justice cried aloud for 
the punishment of such miscreants as Paul surnamed 
*the Chain’ from his activity in arresting suspected 
criminals, Apodemius, and Eusebius the chamberlain, 
who had plotted the death of Gallus. A commission, 
presided over by Sallustius the praetorian praefect, and 
consisting of the consuls Mamertinus and Nevitta, 


The Philosophers 
at Court. 


1, Socrates, 111. r. Ammian., XXII. 4. 

2. Rendall, of. cét., p. 156. Socrates (111. 13) gives an account of 
Hecebolius the Sophist—a Christian under Constantius ; a Sophist under 
Julian ; and a blatant penitent who begged the worshippers to trample on 
him as salt that had lost its savour, when Paganism was no longer 
profitable. 


CH. XV.] JULIAN’S GRECIAN SYMPATHIES. 361 


Arbetio, a man of known severity, Jovinus, Julian’s 
master of the horse, and Agilo, was appointed to try © 
the offenders. Paul and Apodemius were burnt alive. 
The vile eunuch Eusebius was executed, with many 
others, some of whom were innocent of the abomina- 
tions of the late reign. The unjust severity of the 
commissioners cannot be laid to the account of Julian, 
who had always asserted the principle that every 
accused person had a right to be heard in his own 
defence. The court was not happily chosen, and a 
judicial machinery of the kind, if once set in motion, 
is liable to go on till it transgresses the limits of strict 
justice.? 
Thus far nothing has been said of 
most important feature in Julian’s 
policy, his attitude towards religion. Like 
all his family, Julian was very susceptible to the 
influences of religion and even of superstition, and his 
constant expectation of visions, oracles, and all sorts of 
communings with the unseen world, find a parallel in 
the vision and dream which led Constantine to give 
his support to Christianity.2/ Two alternatives were 
open to Julian when he formally declared himself a 
Pagan. He might have preferred the religion of Rome 
to that of Greece. The former was an aristocratic and 
somewhat formal profession of faith in the eternity of 
the imperial city and her gods; it appealed little to the 
imagination but much to custom and association, and, 
as subsequent history proved, had a very powerful and 
enduring hold on men’s minds. Julian would have 
found a very formidable ally against Christianity had 
he fixed his residence in the West and enlisted Roman 
prejudices on his side. But both circumstances and 
inclination led him to the East. Julian was a Greek 
by taste and education. He turns instinctively to Greek 
philosophy for guidance; he reminds the people of 
Alexandria and Constantinople that they are Greeks; 


Julian’s religious 
policy. the 


1. Rendall, p. 154. Even Julian’s admirer Ammianus condemns the 
excessive severity of this court. 

2. Mr. Glover says (Lzfe and Letters in the Fourth Century): ‘In 
this feeling of the dependence on Heaven and the constant reference of 
everything to the divine, he is very like Constantine.” 


362 PAGAN HIERARCHY, © (CH. Xv. 


his hero and exemplar is Alexander the Great.1 He was 
naturally disposed, therefore, to desire the restoration 
of Hellenism under the form of Neo-Platonism,. Plotinus, 
Porphyry, and Jamblichus, the great masters of this 
school, had laboured to unite religion and philosophy, 
and had sought to stimulate the former by the practice 
of theurgy. 
Julian was desirous of erecting a 
Fe Bae waccsrtba Pagan Catholic Church on the basis of 
ae ivan Neo-Platonism,? in which all ancient 
cults were to be preserved and their rites 
practised, whilst their true significance was to be 
expounded by philosophers. An exalted morality was 
expected of the priesthood. Hitherto the priestly office 
had been held by hereditary succession and nad not 
involved any moral obligation. Julian desired to change 
this, and to make the pagan clergy take the place 
of the Christian, as custodians of the moral and 
physical well-being of the people. The priests were 
to live frugally, bring up their families in the practice 
of virtue, dress plainly except when engaged in the 
performance of sacred rites, avoid theatres and taverns, 
and generally to behave as models of grave decorum 
and serious morality. Hospitals and houses for the 
reception of strangers were to be founded, and the 
charity of the pagans was to surpass that of the 
Christians.2 The high-priest, hke the Christian bishop, 
was expected to visit his diocese, and correct his 
unworthy clergy. Julian himself as Pontifex Maximus 
stood at the head of this hierarchy. Even the Jews 
were to be included in the new scheme of comprehension, 
and Julian wrote to their patriarch in the most friendly 
terms, requesting the prayers of the nation, and com- 
mending the sacrificial system of the Law of Moses. In 


1. Throughout the unfortunate and impolitic Persian expedition 
Julian strove to imitate Alexander’s conduct. Gibbon, ch. xxiv. 

2. Rendall, p. 251. 

3. Julian, ZP. 49, to Arsacius high-priest of Galatia: ‘* Then exhort 
the priest not to frequent the theatre, nor to drink in inns, nor to engage 
in any shameful or disreputable trade or craft,” &c., &c. Rendall, 
p. 1o9f. Among other things the pagan clergy were not to read erotic 
novels. Glover, p. 64. Care was to be taken to have good musical 
services in the temples (rfjs lepGs émimednOjvar povorkijs). Ap. 50. 


cH, xv.] CHRISTIANS NOT TO BE PERSECUTED. 363 


order to render this again possible, Julian actually 
commenced the rebuilding of the Temple of Jerusalem. 
The Jews shewed the utmost zeal in undertaking the 
work, which was interrupted by an astonishing miracle. 
As the workmen began to dig the foundations, balls of 
fire burst forth and drove them from the spot.! 

Julian’s attitude towards Christianity 
was not dissimilar to that adopted by Con- 
stantine towards Hellenism. He tolerated 
it, but hoped to reduce the Church to insignificance 
by withdrawing from her all public favour. Nothing 
can be more worthy of a philosopher than Julian’s 
language on the subject of persecution. The Galilaeans 
are not to be insulted or persecuted, persuasion only is 
to be used to bring men to the true religion.? In 
pursuance of this policy all the Christians who had 
suffered exile under the regime of Constantius were 
allowed to return to their homes.2 Perhaps Julian 
hoped that intestine disputes would thus arise to 
distract the Church, but the general drift of his policy 
of toleration is apparent, and it cannot be denied that 
the ideal Julian had set before him was not altogether 
ignoble. For it must not be forgotten that, even under 
Constantius, Paganism was the State religion, and that 
the emperors had favoured the Church not because 
of,.but despite their position. The title of Pontifex 
Maximus, assumed by Constantine and his sons, made 
them, despite their acceptance of the Christian Faith, 
the actual heads of the ancient religion. Julian was 


Attitude towards 
Christianity. 


1. The earliest testimony to this miracle is Gregory of Nazianzum, 
late in the year A.D. 363 or early in 364, if we except a fragment of a letter 
from Julian himself cited by Warburton (/udéan, bk. Iv.) and Newman 
(Zssay on Ecclesiastical Miracles), but considered by Dr. Abbott (PAz/omy- 
thus, p. 185) not to refer to this event. The pagan historian Ammianus, 
writing about twenty years after Julian’s death, bears testimony to the 
interruption of the work of building the Temple, xx11I. 1. Rendall, 
p- 113. Gibbon, ch. xxiii. ‘‘The subsequent witnesses, Socrates, 
Sozomen, Theodoret, Philostorgius, &c., add contradictions rather than 
authority,” says Gibbon in one of his foot-notes. _ 

2. Julian, Z. 52, Rendall, p. 217. Socrates (11. 12) attributes 
Julian’s aversion to use compulsion to his having observed the honours 
paid to the confessors in the days of Diocletian. 

3. Socrates (111. 1) says he did this in order to brand the memory of 
Constantius with cruelty, 


364 STRENGTH OF THE CHURCH.  [cH. xv, 


only fulfilling the duties of his station in interfering 
for the benefit of Paganism; and he did no wrong in 
withholding his favour from the Christians, who had 
only enjoyed the sunshine of imperial goodwill owing 
to the private and personal convictions of his pre- 
decessors.* ae 

Julian misled The failure of Julian’s efforts was 
regarding both due to two erroneous assumptions. “The 

Christianity’ Hellenizing party, according to the 
waist: Faas sanguine expectations of the Emperor, 
needed only a little encouragement to inaugurate a 
great religious revival; he imagined that the worshippers 
of the gods had, like himself, groaned under a Christian 
tyranny, and that they were ready to make a great 
effort to check the growth of the Church. Experience 
shewed that Julian had calculated on a spirit which 
was non-existent in Paganism. The Pagans, it is true, 
bore no good-will to the Christians, but they were not 
ready to make their religion into a serious earnest faith 
and to submit to the rigid control of a hierarchy of 
philosophers and pedants. The very worshippers of 
the gods smiled at his superfluous zeal as they saw 
Julian marching at the head of religious processions, 
inspecting entrails, and sacrificing hecatombs.? To the 
Emperor the Hellenic religion was, what it never had 
been to its professors, a serious earnest philosophic faith, 
wholly alien to the joyous pleasure-seeking worship of 
ancient Greece. If on the one side Julian misjudged 
the Pagans, he was equally mistaken in his estimate of 
Christian zeal. He judged the Christians, no doubt, by 
the time-serving bishops who had frequented the courts 
of Constantius and Gallus, and thought that the with- 
drawal of the imperial protection would reduce their 
numbers to insignificance. He was quite unaware of 
the immense weight of passive resistance with which 
the Church was able to oppose every step in his policy, 
and he found to his cost at Antioch that the Christians 
had popular favour on their side. In addition to this, 
Julian was unable to comprehend the noble intolerance 


1. Beugnot, Hestotre du Paganisme. 
2. Especially at Antioch. Rendall, p, 14%. 


CH. xv.] CHURCH’S PRIVILEGES WITHDRAWN. 365 


of the Church, who would neither suffer a Pagan revival 
to despoil her of her children, nor allow the limits of 
her influence to be circumscribed. It was not possible 
to degrade the Church from the position she had 
attained without a severe struggle, nor was it possible 
to tolerate and at the same time to depress her. In 
making the attempt Julian incurred a more deadly 
hatred than he would have done had he persecuted like 
Galerius. Julian might have supported Paganism, and 
left the Church free though shorn of her privileges, 
without endangering the Empire; but when he tried 
to revive Paganism and to restore its shrines, when he 
tried to make the Church rebuild the temples which his 
predecessors had granted to her, and when he entered 
the lists as a controversialist, he failed completely, and 
began to find that the toleration, which he had striven 
to maintain, was impossible. Had he lived, he would 
have been obliged either to play the odious 7é of a 
persecutor, or to have abandoned his attempt to create 
a Pagan Catholic Church. 
Julian’s reign falls into two periods. 
Two Periods uring the first, he was full of hope that 
Julian’s reign. his religious project would succeed. His 
general policy at this time was one of 
scrupulous toleration. During the second, he began to 
see the hopelessness of his undertaking, and to annoy 
the Christians by all means in his power. He realized 
the difficulties of his position at Antioch, just as he was 
preparing for the Persian war. 

In the laws of Julian, preserved in the 
Theodosian code, the name of Christian is 
but once used, in an edict ordering all 
who claimed exemption from the decurionate on the 
ground of being Christians to be restored to the 
tax-roll.1 A law which fell with more force on the 
Christians was the order to restore the property of the 
temples and to rebuild those which had been demolished. 
Not only was great injustice shewn in confiscating lands 
which had been bought with what seemed a good title, 
because they had belonged to temples, but the Christians 


Laws of 
Julian. 


I. Codex Theod., xiii., t. 1, 1.4. Beugnot, p. 192, 


366 MARK OF ARETHUSA. (cH. xv. 


felt it a point of conscience not to surrender to Pagan 
uses places or vessels which had been dedicated to the 
service of Christ.1 Mark of Arethusa, who had preserved 
the lives of both Julian and Gallus, suffered under this 
edict. He had demolished a temple in the days of 
Constantius, and used the materials to erect a church. 
He was ordered to restore the site and rebuild the 
shrine, or to pay for the damage he had done. He 
refused, and was cruelly treated by the pagan mob, who, 
exasperated by his patience, smeared him with honey 
and hung him up in a net exposed to the insects and 
the intolerable heat of the sun. Yet this torture could 
not persuade the aged bishop to yield so far as to repair 
a heathen shrine, nor would he listen to any offer of a 
compromise.? 

An edict, dated Feb. 363, forbade the celebration 
of funerals by day, and, as this was dated from Antioch, 
it may possibly have been intended to prevent the 
Christians from converting funerals into public demon- 
strations against the Emperor, especially when we 
remember that the famous riots about the bones of 
St. Babylas had but recently rien ae 

ulian naturally sought to gain over 
raaduenset headin to his way of csolsnde He had 
religion inthe but little difficulty in inducing the soldiery 
army. ae : 
to conform. Religion was with many of 
them a matter of discipline, and the success and 
popularity of their emperor smoothed away many 
difficulties. Nevertheless, that great pains were taken 
to avoid giving offence to the Christians in the army, 
the following incident will shew. On the occasion 
of some special donative Julian himself was present, 
and the soldiers were ordered to sprinkle a few grains of 
incense on an altar in loyal acknowledgement of the 
imperial largesse; but no Pagan image was set up, and 
no Pagan god was invoked. The soldiers regarded the 
act as a matter of military etiquette. That evening the 


1. Rendall, p. 165. 

2. This Mark was the author of the Sirmian Creed of 351 (Socrates, 
II. 30; Sozomen, v. 10); where, however, Valesius tries to distinguish 
between Marcus the Confessor and the Homoean leader. Dict. Chr. Biog., 
art. ‘ Marcus’, vol. 11I., p. 825b. Rendall, p. 167. 


cH. xv.} CHRISTIANS AND THE CLASSICS. 367 


Christian soldiers made the sign of the Cross, and 
their Pagan comrades ridiculed them for having offered 
sacrifice to the gods. There were only a few assembled 
at a mess-table, but the conduct of the believing 
soldiers made the affair conspicuous. Thinking that 
they had been entrapped into an act of idolatry, they 
rushed towards the palace proclaiming their loyalty to 
Christ. Julian ordered this breach of military discipline 
to be punished, and the ringleaders were condemned to 
be flogged. The sentence was, however, remitted in 
deference to public opinion.’ Some officers of rank are 
reported to have refused to allow themselves to be 
polluted by Pagan ceremonies. Valentinian is said 
to have been banished for contemptuously shaking off 
the lustral water, with which a Pagan priest had 
sprinkled him; but the truth of this narrative is, to say 
the least, questionable.? 

Julian aimed a far more serious blow 
at the Christians by his educational 
policy. No edict adverse to the Chris- 
tians is found in the Theodosian code, but a rescript 
prohibiting Christians from teaching the classics appears 
in the collection of Julian’s epistles. On 12 May, 362, 
he enacted a law confirming doctors of medicine and 
professors in their existing immunities from the public 
burthens.2 This was followed by an edict ordering 
that no professor should be allowed to teach till he 
had been examined as to his competence, and his 
appointment had been sanctioned by the curiales, with 
the consent and confirmation of the optimi. This might 
in some cases prevent, the appointment of Christians 
as public teachers, but it could not do any serious harm. 
The date of the famous educational rescript is uncertain, 
but the most probable view is that it was promulgated 
after Julian had been soured by his visit to Antioch.‘ 


Educational 
policy. 


1. Sozomen, v. 17. 

2. Theodoret, H. £. 111. 12; a somewhat late authority for an 
imperial conxession of Christ! 

3. Julian, Hf. 41. Rendall, p. 205. For a most valuable account of 
the educational system of this period see Gaston Boissier, La Fin du 
Paganisme, bk. u1., ‘Le Christianisme et l’éducation romaine.’ 

4. ‘‘Issued” says Mr. Rendall ‘‘June 17, shortly before Julian’s 
arrival at Antioch.”—p. 207. Cod. Theod., xiii., t. 3, 1. 5. 


368 ATHANASIUS BANISHED. (CH. Xv, 


After a preamble setting forth the duty of every professor 
to practise virtue, and to teach the desirability of 
honesty to his disciples, Julian points out the extreme 
dishonesty of teaching what one does not believe. The 
Christian teachers of classical literature, who do not 
believe in the gods, are therefore called dishonest men, 
who for the sake of a few pence stifle their convictions. 
The religious terrorism, says Julian, practised by the 
Christian emperors in the past, forced many worthy 
men to hide their real opinions; but, as now there is 
no excuse for this, those who teach Homer and Hesiod 
must believe in the immortal gods. If they refuse from 
conscientious motives, “‘let them” says Julian “ go to the 
churches of the Galilaeans and expound Matthew and 
Luke.” No act of Julian’s caused more indignation. 
The very Pagans condemned it.) From what we can 
gather from other sources we see that it was rigidly 
enforced, and that it succeeded in driving the Christian 
professors from the schools. Proaeresius, the master 
of Julian at Athens, rejected the Emperor’s assurance 
that he should be unmolested, and resigned his chair.? 
The two Apollinarii at Laodicaea set to work to 
construct classical text-books, modelled on the ancient 
works, for their Christian scholars;* Victorinus, the great 
master of eloquence at Rome, refused to desert the cause 
of God, and retired from the schools.‘ 3 
; One Christian teacher was the subject 
julian and of Julian’s special animosity. Athanasius 
had returned to Alexandria, after the riot 

in which his predecessor, the infamous George, had been 
murdered. In September, 362, he had held a small but 
very important council, which had contributed greatly 
to the union of the Church, and he had also baptized 
some Pagan ladies.’ Julian saw in the veteran bishop 
too dangerous an enemy to the cause of Hellenism to be 


1. Ammianus (XXII. 10) says of the edict that ‘‘it must be plunged 
into everlasting silence”. Rendall, p. 212. 

2. Rendall, p. 215. 

3. Socrates, 111. 16; Sozomen, v. 18, who says that Gregory of 
Nazianzum joined in this work. 
” 4- See Augustine, Confess. v111. 2, for the conversion of Victorinus 

er. 
5. Julian, Hp. 6,51. Index to Festal Letters, XXXV. 


cH. xv.) | THE CHI AND THE KAPPA. 369 


suffered to remain at Alexandria. and ordered the 
Alexandrians to expel him forthwith, threatening them 
with penalties if they disobeyed. He wrote to Ecdicius, 
the praefect, ordering him to chase Athanasius from 
Egypt. Words fail him to describe his hatred of the 
bishop, and the letter ends curtly with the significant 
word dvaxeic0w. The Alexandrians petitioned in favour 
of their bishop, and in reply Julian wrote to contrast 
the works of Jesus with the splendid deeds of Alexander 
and the Ptolemies.! Athanasius was forced into exile, 
but prophesied as he fled that this was a little cloud 
which would soon pass over. The Emperor’s death 
verified his prediction and enabled him to return in 
peace.’ 
: Before, however, continuing the record 
endurediviuiian, of acts which betray Julian’s hostility 
against the Church, it may be well to 
give a short description of the provocations suffered 
by him during his sojourn at the Christian city of 
Antioch. The serious and earnest Pagan emperor and 
the populace of the pleasure-loving Antioch with 
Christian sympathies, were very soon at irreconcileable 
enmity. In May, 362, Julian passed from Europe to 
Asia, and after a long progress through Asia Minor 
arrived at Antioch early in July. The polished but 
effeminate population of the capital of the East cared 
nothing for military glory, nor for the manly virtues 
which Julian had displayed in Gaul, preferring Con- 
stantius, with his many vices but stately bearing and 
splendid retinue, to the philosophic hero’s undignified 
appearance and dirty beard. In their own words, they 
preferred the Chi and Kappa (Xpioros and Kwvorayvtios) 
to Julian.’ Julian’s sojourn at Antioch was one con- 
tinued disappointment. Owing to the fact that forces 
were being massed there for the Persian campaign,‘ famine 
prices prevailed in the city; and in order to prevent 


1. Julian, 2. 6, 26, 51. The language the Emperor uses in regard 
to Athanasius, ovdé dvhp adX’ dvOpwrloxos evredjs, K.T.A.y is unworthy 
alike of a prince and a philosopher. 

2. Rufinus, 1. 34. Rendall, p. 194. 

3. Julian, ALtsopogon, 357, 70 Xt, paclv, ovdév Hdlknoe Thy worw, 
ovde 7d Kadrra. 

4 Socrates, 111. 18. 

AA 


370 THE SHRINE AT DAPHNE. [cH. xv. 


corn being sold for an excessive price the Emperor 
unwisely decreed a fixed rate, and imported 22,000 modii 
from the neighbouring granaries, and even from Egypt. 
The grain was bought in the open market by large 
speculators, who evaded the law and sold it to the 
people at famine prices, thereby increasing the distress. 
The municipal senate protested; and Julian, strong in 
the consciousness of the purity of his motives, and 
unwilling to own his mistake, ordered many of the 
principal persons in Antioch to be arrested. Though 
they were soon liberated, the insult was not readily 
forgiven. f 

The religion of the Emperor was as unpopular as his 
policy. The glory of Pagan Antioch was the Temple 
of Apollo at Daphne. The Emperor on visiting the 
celebrated shrine found it completely deserted save 
by one old priest, who informed him that he had 
nothing to offer to the god but a goose. Julian 
proceeded to restore the fallen worship to its former 
glories, and ordered the oracular spring of Castalia 
to be reopened, though it had been for centuries 
blocked up in consequence of its having revealed to 
Hadrian the secret that he would one day be master 
of the Empire. But the oracle was dumb, and no 
sound could be extracted by sacrifices and libations 
save the cry “The Dead, the Dead!” It was supposed | 
that this was due to the presence of the bones of 
St. Babylas, bishop of Antioch, who had been martyred 
under Diocletian. They were removed, and the Chris- 
tians made the ceremony an occasion for a demonstration. 
The procession, in defiance of the wrath of the Emperor, 
sang the words of the Psalmist, “ Confounded be they 
that worship carved images.’”? 

The Temple of Daphne was burnt soon after this 
riot, and, as the fire was said to have been caused 
by the Christians, a youth by name Theodore was 
tortured on the rack for a whole day by Sallustius, the 
praetorian praefect.2. The great church of Antioch seems 
to have also been closed at this time. Two soldiers, 


I, Sozomen, v.19; Rufinus, I. 35; Rendall, p.194. Ps. xevii. 7 (P.B.) 
2. Socrates, 111. 19, who says he had the story from Rufinus (1. 36). 
Sozomen, v. 20. Theodoret, III. 7. 


CH. XV.]} THE MISOPOGON. 371 


by name Juventinus and Maximus, are said by Chry- 
sostom to have been put to death for quoting Scripture 
against Julian in a tavern. They suffered nominally 
for treasonable language aud insolence to their officers. 
But it is vastly to Julian’s credit that he never revenged 
the irritating insults of the people of Antioch by any 
great severity. Many a Roman emperor, secure in the 
adherence of a devoted army, would have condemned 
the turbulent but effeminate mob of Antioch to the 
horrors of a massacre. Julian bore their taunts in 
silence, and contented himself with a strange revenge. 
He composed a satire on the inhabitants of Antioch, 
called the Misopogon or Beard-hater, from the ridicule 
which they had directed against his hirsute appearance. 
The work is a monument of the wit, the humanity, and 
the absence of judgment, of the Emperor. He placed 
himself in a false position by bandying satirical 
pamphlets with his subjects; but we cannot but admire 
the spirit which could satisfy itself with so harmless a 
vengeance. For Julian, as his letters from Antioch 
testify, felt the behaviour of the Christian 
mob of that city acutely. We cannot 
fail to notice how his patience gradually 
failed him, and that his once impartial toleration 
began to disappear. In his letter to the people of 
Bostra, whose bishop Titus tried to prevent a collision 
between the Pagans and Christians, Julian advises that 
the bishop be chased from the city by the inhabitants, 
whom he had slandered by reporting their conduct.? 
This meanness of spirit, which could thus turn a good 
action of a bishop into an inducement for the mob 
to eject him, is equally noticeable in Julian’s letter 
to Edessa. The Arians had attacked the Valentinians, 
and many outrages had been committed. Julian wrote 
to Hecebolius confiscating the entire property of the 
Church, handing the funds to the soldiery, and the land 
to the fiscus. “In this way” he adds sneeringly “they 
will learn prudence in poverty, and not lose that 
heavenly kingdom they still hope for.’ 


Julian’s patience 
gives way. 


I. Theodoret, m1. 41, Chrysostom composed a sermon in their 
honour. 
artulian, 2p. §2. 3. :Id., itp. 53: 
AA 2 


372 RIOTS AT ALEXANDRIA [cH. xv. 


The murder of George of Alexandria 

Attacks on the was as atrocious as it was deserved. The 

disreputable pork-contractor, who had 

been made bishop of Alexandria in place of Athanasius, — 
had behaved with rapacity and violence. Not only 
had he oppressed and persecuted the followers of his 
exiled predecessor, but he had insulted the Pagans 
by ridiculing their temples as sepulchres, and parading 
through the streets the obscene and ridiculous objects 
used in the Mithras worship. In 362 the mob arose 
and murdered the bishop, and after exhibiting his 
mangled corpse on a camel, they burnt it and cast the 
ashes into the sea. ‘Though the Emperor indicted a 
severe reproof to the Alexandrians, he dwelt so much 
on the crimes of George that he created the fatal 
impression that similar acts might be perpetrated 
with impunity. Nor did the Pagans fail to in- 
terpret the wishes of the Emperor in accordance 
with their own desires! At Heliopolis the heathen 
revenged the conversion of the temple of Venus into 
a church, by murdering Christian virgins and throwing 
their entrails to the pigs. At Gaza, three brothers, 
Eusebius, Nestabus, and Zeno, were martyred by the 
mob.’ According to one account, Julian was seriously 
angry at this outrage; but Sozomen says that he re- 
marked “What need to arrest the fellows for retaliating © 
on a few Galilaeans for all the wrongs they have 
done to the gods?” At Dorostolus, in Thrace, St. 
Aemilian was burned alive for ‘sacrilege’.* St. Basil, 
a young presbyter of Ancyra, was accused of seditious 
preaching and insulting the idols. He was brought 
before Julian and condemned by him to have seven 
strips flayed from his body every day. He flung one of 
them in the Emperor’s face, crying “Take, Julian, the 
food you relish.” On the departure of Julian from 


1. Julian, Z. 10; Socrates, 111. 3. _‘* You will, no doubt,” writes 
the Emperor, ‘‘ be ready to say that George justly merited his chastisement ; 
and we might be disposed perhaps to admit that he deserved still more 
acute torture !” 

2. Sozomen, vV. 10, 

3. Sozomen, Vv. 9. 

4. Rendall, p. 180. 


CH. Xv.] © DEATH OF JULIAN. 373 


Ancyra he was put to death.! Several persons who richly 
deserved punishment were enrolled among the martyrs, 
notably George of Alexandria, and Artemius the military 
praefect of Egypt, who is said to have suffered death for 
his zeal against the idols, but who merited a worse 
punishment than beheading, for having supported George 
in his iniquities and extortions. 

Julian, not content with opposing 
hoian’s Christianity as an emperor, entered the 
the Christians, lists as a literary critic of the Church; 

and so great was the influence of his 
book, that Cyril, bishop of Alexandria a full generation 
after his death, found it necessary to refute his arguments. 
The book has a singularly modern tone, owing to 
Julian’s having, unlike most ancient opponents of 
Christianity, a considerable knowledge of the Old 
and New Testaments. He sees traces of polytheism in 
the religion of ancient Israel; he notices the differences 
between St. John’s Gospel and the three earlier ones; 
he declares Christianity to be a mingling of the 
worst elements of Hellenism and Judaism. He 
ridicules the story of the Fall of Man. Libanius 
considered it a better refutation of Christianity than 
that by fae ae sa Ne a 
: n March 5, 363, Julian left Antioch 
oe ton his Gees ae against Persia. 
The details of the war need not be here related ; suffice 
it to say that Julian shewed that he still possessed 
the virtues of a soldier, but forgot that the part of 
a hero trying to equal Alexander the Great was fraught 
with disaster to the enfeebled empire of Rome. His 
death, and the retreat of the Roman army after ceding 
provinces to Persia, form a melancholy sequel to the 
noble promise of his early career. 
Julian’s life and reign had proved conclusively 


1. Sozomen, Vv. 1%. The scars of the martyr had miraculously 
disappeared when he was brought to execution. ‘*A marvel which” 
says Mr. Rendall ‘‘might cause temporary uneasiness to the most 
credulous.” The acts of the martyrdom are in Ruinart. 

2. Gaston Boissier, p. 128. The arguments of Julian against 
Christianity have been collected by Newman. Glover, Lz/e and Letters 
in the Fourth Century, ; 


374 FAILURE OF PAGANISM. (CH. Xv. 


that Christianity must of necessity be the religion of 
the Empire. His attempt to reconstruct Paganism 
had but demonstrated the incurable weakness and 
rottenness of the old religion. Though he may never 
have uttered them, the words put into his mouth by 
the Christian historian are true:—‘ Thou hast conquered, 
O Galilaean.”” 


1. Theodoret, 111%. 203; Sozomen, vi. 2 Julian is said to have 
upbraided the sun. The note on the passage in Theodoret, Wicene and 
Post-Nicene Fathers, points out that qrdrnkas Ate is not very dissimilar 
in sound to the exclamation reported by that historian, 


CHAPTER XVI. 


CONCLUSION OF THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY 
IN THE EMPIRE. 


THe reign of Julian was but an 
Survey of affairs interlude in the struggle by which the 
: wr seen rr% * Church was distracted. For a short time 
the contending parties paused to avert a 
common disaster, but no sooner was the danger over 
than they resumed hostilities. The death of Constantius 
was the real turning point in the controversy; since had 
he lived for another twenty years, Homoean Arianism 
might have been so firmly established as the official 
creed of the Empire,! that nothing but a serious revolution 
could ever have displaced it. That emperor’s sudden 
death in a.p. 361 checked the Arianizers in the very 
moment of their triumph, for the withdrawal of external 
pressure in favour of any particular formula of belief 
gave everybody the opportunity of declaring himself 
under his true colours, A survey of Christian opinion 
at this time in the different parts of the Roman world 
will at once explain the situation of the various parties. 
In the Western division of the Empire 
The West adheres al] forms of Arianism had been merely of 
to the ; : 
Nicene Greed. CXOtic growth, and it was only by fraud 
or violence that any formula save that of 
Nicaea had ever been adopted. If at the Councils of 
Milan and Ariminum the Westerns had proved unfaithful 
to Saint Athanasius and the MHomdousion, it was due to 
the fear of imperial displeasure, and still more to the 


1, Athanasius says expressly that the Arian chiefs considered the 
Chyrch a mere department of state, voulfovres rodtrelay Bovd#s elvar Thy 
éxxdnolav. Ad Monachos, quoted by Canon Jenkins, 


376 THE WEST REPUDIATES ARIANISM. [cu. xv1, 


dexterous party management of Ursacius and Valens. 
No sooner therefore did the news of the death of Con- 
stantius become public than the Occidental bishops 
reverted to their old allegiance. The apostasy of 
Ariminum had no permanent effects; Liberius returned 
to Rome to teach the doctrine which he had in a 
moment of weakness repudiated. From henceforth the 
Nicene formula was firmly established in the Western 
portion of the Empire, which was fortunate after 
Julian’s death in enjoying the advantage of the govern- 
ment of an emperor who abstained from interfering 
with religious belief. Valentinian, who was chosen 
emperor after the brief and inglorious reign of Jovian, 
took up his abode in the Western provinces, leaving 
the Eastern countries to the care of his brother and 
colleague, Valens. Though a Christian by conviction, 
Valentinian maintained the strictest impartiality in 
matters of religion, ruling his subjects with a justice 
marred only by occasional outbursts of severity.” 
The Christians of Egypt, under the 
Athanasius influence of their great but persecuted 
and the Council jeader Athanasius, were faithful to the 
A.D.362. orthodox cause. Since his expulsion 
from Alexandria in a.p. 356 Athanasius 
had been a wanderer, at one time taking refuge amongst 
the solitaries in the desert, at another visiting his — 
adherents in secret; perhaps actually present during 
part of the synod of Ariminum, and once the guest of 
a Christian virgin of great beauty, who protected the 
champion of Nicaea by concealing him from his enemies. 
George of Cappadocia, the Arian bishop of Alexandria, 
fell a victim to the fury of the pagan mob, which his 
indiscreet language had provoked, and when Athanasius 
returned under the edict of Julian permitting all exiled 
bishops to come back to their homes, he was able to hold 
a small but most important council at Alexandria, 
resulting in a complete understanding between the 


1. Gwatkin, Studzres of Arianism, p. 181. Even before the breach 
between Julian and Constantius the Gaulish bishops had met at Paris to 
ratify the Nicene faith and excommunicate the Western Arians. 

2. Gwatkin, Studzes of Arianism, p. 227. De Broglie, L’Eglise et 
PEmpire, vol. 1., p. 12. 


CH. XVI.] SUBSTANTIA AND PERSONA. 377 


Western and Eastern supporters of the Nicene Creed. The 
former had no adequate equivalents for the terms ovcla 
and wmootacis, used by the Greeks to designate the 
one essence of the Trinity and the special personality 
belonging to Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Athanasius, 
who understood Latin, was able to appreciate the 
position of the Occidentals, and to persuade them to 
agree that substantia, which they had previously used to 
render vmoctacts, should from henceforth be the equiva- 
lent of ovota, and that the word persona should be 
the accepted rendering of tzroatacts.’ 
The Eastern provinces were destined 
The Semi-Arians to be in the first instance the battle-field 
ant Bevias:: of the Arian controversy. Here public 
opinion may be described as being inclined 
to orthodoxy, but preferring the creed of Antioch to that 
of Nicaea. ‘This phase of opinion was represented by 
bishops like Basil of Ancyra, Eleusius of Cyzicus, and 
Eustathius of Sebaste, as well as by prelates like 
Gregory bishop of Nazianzus, whose son and name- 
sake is celebrated as one of the greatest theologians 
of the Eastern Church. These, having suffered at the 
hands of the Homoeans, who shewed no mercy to 
their former allies after their triumphs at Ariminum 
and Seleucia,? were drawing closer to the adherents of 
the Nicene symbol. They were encouraged in this by 
Hilary, bishop of Poictiers in Gaul, whose strenuous 
adherence to the Aoméousion has won for him the 
title of ‘the Athanasius of the West’. Hilary, after 
being condemned in 356 by a council at Biterrae, held 
by command of Constantius under the auspices of the 
Caesar Julian, had been banished to Asia Minor, where 


1. The decrees of the Council of Alexandria are given in a Zome or 
letter to the Church of Antioch published in the works of Athanasius and 
used by Rufinus, 4. Z. x. 29. Socrates (111. 7) wrongly says that this 
council refused to apply the terms ousza and hyfostaszs to God, and gives 
an interesting account of the use of the word hyfostaszs. Sozomen, V. 12; 
Jerome, adv. Lucif. 20; Gwatkin, Studies of Arianism, p. 207; Hefele, 
Councils, vol. 11., p. 277 (Eng. Transl.); Prolegomena to Athanasius, 
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, p. \viii. 

2. At the Acacian synod of Constantinople, at which Macedonius, 
Basil of Ancyra, Eustathius of Sebaste, and others were deposed. Socrates, 
Il. 38—42; Sozomen, Iv. 24. See Hefele, Coumczls, vol. 11., p. 271. 


378 LUCIFER CAUSES A SCHISM. (CH. XVI. 


he found the Semi-Arian party more in sympathy with 
his opinions than he had expected, and was able to 
exercise much influence without obtruding himself into 
their councils! As the flight of Athanasius to Rome 
resulted in securing the support of the West for the 
cause of Nicaea, so did Hilary’s banishment contribute 
to win over the Asiatic provinces. 


; An unfortunate display of excessive 
The Schism of eal for orthodoxy on the part of Lucifer, 
bishop of Calaris in Sardinia, hindered 
the restoration of a complete understanding between 
the Asiatic, Alexandrian, and Roman Churches. Soon 
after the Synod of Alexandria this energetic champion 
of the Nicene faith went to Antioch, where he found 
that Meletius, who had been appointed bishop by 
the Arians, had publicly preached in favour of the 
Nicene Creed and had been acknowledged as bishop 
by some of the orthodox, who were satisfied with his 
ministrations.? Lucifer, however, refused to recognise 
Meletius, and attached himself to the party which, 
since the deposition of Eustathius in 330, had pre- 
ferred separation to communicating with bishops of 
doubtful orthodoxy. The consecration of Paulinus by 
Lucifer made the breach irreparable, and for a long 
time the Church of Antioch was divided between the > 
supporters of Meletius, who had the sympathy of the 
prelates of the East, and those of Paulinus, whom 
Alexandria and Rome agreed in acknowledging as the 
lawful bishop. 


1. Hefele, Cousczls, vol. 11., p. 216. Gwatkin, of. czt., p. 150 and 
164—166, on the De Synoedis, written by Hilary before the acceptance 
of the creed of Nicé. He was present at Seleucia. Hilary was especially 
impressed by such Semi-Arians as Eleusius, Eustathius, and Basil of 
Ancyra. Newman, Arians, p. 229. 


2. Meletius, on being translated from Sebastia in Armenia to Antioch, 
was ordered by Constantius to preach on the crucial passage Kupros 
éxricé pe, Prov. viii. 22. His exposition of the text was Nicene. For 
this he was sent into exile. Gwatkin, of. czt., p. 183. Theodoret (II. 27) 
speaks of him with deep respect, and Gregory of Nyssa, who preached his 
funeral oration, alludes to ‘‘the sweet calm look, the radiant smile, the 
kind hand seconding the kind voice” of Meletius. . 


On the conduct of Lucifer, who was not present at Alexandria, 
see WVicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Proleg. to Athanasius, p. lviii. 


CH. XVI.] SEMI-ARIANS APPROACH ROME. 379 


Jd ake rele The Emperor Valentinian received 
Velene the purple on February 26, 364, and on 
March 29th he associated his brother 
Valens in the Empire, assigning to him the Eastern 
provinces. Valens, inferior to his brother both in 
character and ability, was a well-meaning and indus- 
trious man, who might have filled a subordinate 
place with credit, but was unfitted for the heavy 
responsibility of empire. In his ecclesiastical policy 
Valens endeavoured to continue that of Constantius, 
but he lacked the prestige of birth which had made 
the last surviving son of Constantine so potent in 
religious matters. Valens fixed his residence at Con- 
stantinople, now completely under Arian influences, 
the bishop being Eudoxius, the predecessor of Meletius 
in the see of Antioch. His successor was Demophilus, 
the last Arian bishop of the imperial city.} 
eae The Semi-Arians induced Valen- 
Lampsacas,  timian to allow a synod to be held at 
Lampsacus in the autumn of 364, at 
which the bishops assembled pronounced the Son to 
be like to the Father as regards His Essence (éuo.os 
Kat ovciav). Valens, however, influenced by Eudoxius, 
who persuaded him to accept Arian baptism in 367, 
reprimanded Eleusius of Cyzicus and the bishops at 
Lampsacus for presuming to despatch Eustathius of 
Sebaste on an embassy to Liberius, the bishop of 
Rome, promising to accept the Nicene Faith. In the 
year 305 an imperial rescript was put forth com- 
manding the municipalities to drive out all those 
bishops who, having been banished by Constantius, 
had availed themselves of Julian’s permission to return.’ 
Athanasius had to leave Alexandria for the fifth time 


1. Prof. Gwatkin (0. czt., p. 234) attributes Valens’s policy partly to 
the religious condition of the Eastern Provinces, ‘‘upon the whole the 
Homoean policy was the easiest for the moment,” and partly to the 
influence of Eudoxius and the Empress Dominica. 


2. Sozomen (VI. 7) gives a good account of the synod. The 
deputies met Valens as he was returning from Heraclea to Thrace. 
(Socrates, tv. 4.) For the date of the council see Prof. Gwatkin’s Studies 
of Arianism, Note M. For the embassy to Rome, Hefele, Coumczls, § 88. 
Eng. Transl. 


380 FIFTH EXILE OF ATHANASIUS.  [cH. XVI. 


during his long episcopate, but was very soon restored 
to his flock.’ | 
The position of Valens was, however, 
soaton the t° precarious for him to imitate Con- 
Gothic War, stantius in expelling the great leaders 
865-368. of the Christian Church. In September, 
365, Procopius, a kinsman of Julian, 
claimed the Empire, and Valens was only saved by 
the firmness of his generals and the timidity of his 
rival.2 The first of the wars with the Goths in this 
reign occupied the years 367 and 368, ending in favour 
of the Romans, and resulting in a treaty between 
Valens and the Gothic leader Athanaric, made on a 
boat in the middle of the river Danube. But until 
Valens was freed from his serious political anxieties, 
he was unable to interfere actively in matters of religion.® 
This emperor is accused of having been a party to a 
serious crime, which, if the charge were true, would 
place him among the worst of his persecuting pre- 
decessors. It is reported that he allowed Modestus, the 
praefect, to put eighty of the orthodox clergy on board 
a vessel, which was burned and deserted by the crew, 
who had received orders to leave the passengers to their 
fate. Happily, however, the evidence is not sufficient 
to warrant a belief that Valens was guilty.4 
During the persecution of the Nicene 
Faith under Valens a new generation of 
theologians arose in Asia Minor of a very 
different type to those of the time-serving Eusebian or 
vacillating Semi-Arian party. Three men of strong 


The Cappadocian 
Fathers. 


1. Meletius also returned to Antioch. The revolt of Procopius was 
no doubt the reason why they were restored. Gwatkin, of. czt., p. 238. 


2. Ammian. XXVI. 10. 3. Procopius’s army was defeated at. 


Nacolia in Phrygia. De Broglie (L’ Egiise e¢ 7 Empire, p. 7) remarks that 
this rebellion was prejudicial to the extreme Arians, as Eunomius was a 
partisan of Procopius. 

3. Dr. Hodgkin (Znvaders of Italy, vol. 1., pp. 160—183) describes 
this scene and gives an account of the oration of Themistius. 

The story is told by Socrates (IV. 16) and Theodoret (Iv. 24). 

Prof. Gwatkin does not accept it, partly on account of the enormity of the 
crime, partly because there is no contemporary evidence, and also 
because Modestus subsequently enjoyed the friendship of Basil. (Studzes 
of Arianism, note N.) | 


CH. XVI.] THE THREE CAPPADOCIANS. 381 


individuality and great personal holiness, knit together 
by ties alike of blood and friendship, appeared on the 
scene, and by their efforts the Eastern Church declared 
finally in favour of the Nicene doctrine. Gregory 
of Nazianzus and the two brothers, Basil bishop of 
Caesarea in Cappadocia and Gregory bishop of Nyssa, 
share the credit of removing all difficulties experienced 
by the Christians of Asia Minor and Syria in accepting 
the dogma of the consubstantiality of the Son. This 
remarkable trio belonged to the Christian aristocracy 
of their province. Gregory was the son of the bishop 
of Nazianzus, Basil and his brother the grandsons of 
a lady named Macrina, who with her husband had 
suffered in the days of the Diocletian persecution. Their 
parents—Basil an eminent advocate, and his wife 
Emmelia—were Christians of wealth and position. 
The eldest sister, named Macrina after her grandmother, 
was deeply religious, and it was due to her influence 
that Basil determined to abandon a secular career.} 
In addition to the advantage of the influence of 
Christian homes, the three young Cappadocians enjoyed 
that of the best education of the age. Gregory with his 
brother Caesarius left Nazianzus to study at Caesarea 
in Palestine, and afterwards became the pupil of 
Didymus the Blind, master of the famous Catechetical 
School at Alexandria. Finally he went to Athens, 
where he was joined by Basil, whom his influence 
saved from those annoyances which have at all times 
beset a new-comer on entering a society of youthful 
students. Julian was at Athens at the time, and the 
future emperor appreciated the abilities of Basil, who 
was making for himself a great reputation as a student 
under Himerius and Proaeresius.? 
On their return to their homes both 
Ascetic life Gregory and Basil were attracted by the 
of Gregory ; : 
Sud Basil. ascetic lives of some of the more earnest 
Christians of their time. Gregory settled 
near his home at Nazianzus and became a fervent 


1. Gregory of Nyssa, Lzfe of Macréna (his sister). Basil, like Timothy, 
learned about God from his grandmother, Macrina, Z. ccxxiii., § 3. 

2. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Prolegomena to Basil. Gregory 
of Nazianzus, Oratzo XLIII. 


382 THE. PAILOCALI“A SS [CH. XVI. 


ascetic, not, however, entirely abandoning all human 
duties; for we find him complaining that the dis- 
tractions of life and troubles with servants hindered 
his spiritual progress.’ Basil, on the other hand, having 
visited the famous solitaries in the Egyptian deserts, 
in Palestine and in Coele-Syria, returned to Asia 
Minor prepared to organize religious communities, and 
to assist his friend Eustathius of Sebaste in introducing 
monasticism.2, He himself settled at Annesi, where his 
father had possessed an estate; and a friendly and even 
playful correspondence took place between Basil and 
Gregory, who was invited to join his retreat. The 
two when companions in asceticism occupied them- 
selves in completing the collection of the best passages 
of Origen known as the Philocalia. 
i But Basil was not fitted for the 
Soudeie peaceful life of an ascetic student, and 
his active and masterful disposition drove 
him to take part in the ecclesiastical politics of his 
age. If it was his misfortune to be compelled to sever 
many friendships he had formed, owing to his associates 
proving unworthy of his confidence, it was probably 
an advantage to him to have been acquainted with 
men of widely different views. Julian’s apostasy, the 
vacillations of Eustathius of Sebaste between orthodoxy 
and Arianism, and the heresy of Apollinarius, all cost 
him friends, but taught him valuable lessons. We find 
him in A.D. 359 accompanying the bishops Basil of 
Ancyra and Eustathius of Sebaste on an embassy to 
Constantius from the Synod of Seleucia,‘ and leaving 
his home at Caesarea because the bishop Dianius 
signed the creed of Nicé. It is pleasing, however, to 


1. Dict. Christian Biog., art. ‘Gregory of Nazianzus’. He says 
of his retreat tpdrwv yap elvat Thy poviv, ob cwudtwv. Carnien de 
Vita sua. 

2. ‘* Inside Mount Taurus the movement came chiefly from the Semi- 
Arian side. Eustathius of Sebastia has the doubtful credit of starting it in 
Pontus.” Gwatkin, of. czt., p. 231, on the rise of asceticism. 

3. Basil, 4%. xiv.; Gregory of Nazianzus, Z/. ii. Basil was 
keenly alive to the beauties of nature. 

4. According to the Prolegomena to Basil, Wicene and Post-Nicene 
Fathers, the presence of Basil of Ancyra rests on the authority of Gregory 
of Nyssa, and of Philostorgius, the Arian historian. 


CH. xvi] BASIL EXARCH OF PONTUS. 383 


record that Basil returned to his native town, and that 
Dianius died completely reconciled to him.’ So great 
was his popularity at this time, that he was able on 
the death of Dianius (A.D. 362) to influence the election 
to the metropolitan see of Caesarea in favour of 
his friend Eusebius, by whom he was made a priest. 
(A.D. 364.) Basil’s relations with his bishop were not 
always friendly, but he was ultimately reconciled to 
him by the kindly help of his friend Gregory.? 
} When Eusebius died in a.p. 370 Basil 
a hele of did not shrink from undertaking to fill 
Caesarea. § his placé, and by the strenuous efforts of 
his friends he was placed in the high 
position of Metropolitan of Cappadocia and Exarch of 
Pontus, which he held for nine years. He set himself 
to reform the state of his diocese, and province—the 
latter including Pontus, Galatia, Bithynia, and the 
Greater and Lesser Armenia.* He discovered that 
great irregularities prevailed in the matter of ordina- 
tions, and was specially troubled by a fanatical deacon 
named Glycerius, who seems to have combined the 
Corybantic excesses of his native land with Christian 
worship.4 Basil devoted much time to the work of 
regulating the monastic system, and extensive charit- 
able institutions sprang up under his fostering care. 
Round the church so many buildings arose for the 
benefit of the needy,—hospitals, workshops, and the 
like,—that these received the name of the New City,* 
and Basil’s view of the way in which the rich ought 
1. Basil, Zp. 51. 
2. Several of the bishops objected to the election of Eusebius and 
were ready to put Basil in his place; to avoid this, Basil retired to his 


monasteries in Pontus. Prolegomena to Basil, Mzcene and Post-Nicene 
Fathers, Qe XX: 

3. For the localities mentioned in connexion with Basil, see Ramsay’s 
Historical Geography of Asia Minor. 

4. Prof. Ramsay in his Church and the Roman Empire, ch. xviii., 
suggests that these excesses were before the time of Basil a not uncommon 
part of ‘‘ a great religious meeting” in Asia Minor. 

5. Basil’s Ptochotropheion, as it was termed, consisted of a church, a 
palace for the bishop, lodgings for the clergy, for the workmen employed 
in the works, and for the poor; a hospital for lepers was also established. 
Greg. Naz., Orat. xx.; Dict. Chr. Biog., art.‘ Basil’. Prolegomena to Basil 
(p. xxi) quotes Prof. Ramsay, Church and the Roman Eipire, p. 464: 
‘The New City of Basil seems to have caused the gradual concentration 


284 VALENS VISITS CAESAREA. (CH. xvI, 
to contribute to the necessities of the poor was so com- 
prehensive that he has been claimed as a forerunner of 
modern socialism.’ 

The displeasure of an Arian emperor 
like Valens at such energy displayed by 
an orthodox prelate was much dreaded by Basil’s 
friends, and when in a.p. 371 the court travelled 
through Asia Minor on its way to Antioch, a conflict 
seemed inevitable. The Emperor himself was by no 
means easy in his mind as to the result, and Modestus 
the praefect was sent to persuade Basil by alternate 
threats and arguments to make the imperial visit 
acceptable by conforming to the Emperor’s wishes.? 
It is needless to say that the bishop’s attitude was 
perfectly unbending. Euippus, a Galatian bishop, was 
excommunicated for daring to suggest that Basil 
should, at any rate for this occasion, modify his views; 
and when, in the presence of Valens, the imperial cook 
Demosthenes tried to influence him by threats, he was 
scornfully reminded that the place for an “‘illiterate 
Demosthenes” was the kitchen. When however Valens 
came all went well. It is said that the Emperor 
had intended to banish Basil, but, when his infant son 
fell ill, and was restored to health by the bishop’s 
prayers, Valens seems to have relented, and not only 
did not molest the bishop of Caesarea, but admired 
his extensive works of charity and contributed to 
their maintenance.® It is possible, however, that three 
years later Basil felt the effects of the imperial 
displeasure in the decree by which Valens divided the 


Basil and Valens. 


of the entire population of Caesarea round the ecclesiastical centre, and the 
abandonment of the old city. Modern Kaisari is situated between one and 
two miles from the site of the Graeco-Roman city.” 


1. The Prolegomena to Basil, Mzcene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 
p. xvii, refers to the Mew Party, in 1894, pp. 82 and 83. On p. xlvii 
Basil’s Sermon on Ps. xiv. (xv. in A.V.) against usury is given, in which 
Basil dwells with equal force on the crime of lending and the folly of 
borrowing on usury for purposes of extravagance and display. 

2. Modestus afterwards became a personal friend of Basil, and six 
letters are addressed to him: 104, 110, III, 279, 280, 281. 

3. Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. Xx. ; Socrates, Iv. 26; Sozomen, VI. 16; 
Theodoret, 1v. 16. The child was baptized byan Arian, and was believed 
to have died in consequence. 


CH. xvi.] BASIL SUPPORTS HIS RIGHTS, 385 


civil administration of Cappadocia by making Caesarea 
the capital of one portion and Tyana of the other. 
So closely were the civil and ecclesiastical jurisdictions 
already united, that Anthimus, bishop of Tyana, in- 
stantly asserted that, as metropolitan of a new province, 
he was independent of Basil.? 

Basil naturally resented any attempts 
to curtail the extent of his jurisdiction, 
and, in order to shew that his rights 
extended into the territory claimed by the bishop of 
Tyana, he nominated his brother Gregory to the 
bishopric of Nyssa, and his friend Gregory of Nazianzus 
to the see of Sasima, a wretched posting town utterly 
unfit for the residence of a man of devout and 
scholarly tastes and of a singularly sensitive nature.? 
Gregory yielded to the insistence of his friend, and 
when Eusebius of Samosata remonstrated on his ap- 
pointing a man like Gregory to so obscure a see, Basil 
wrote in terms of profuse compliment, ‘‘I wish that 
Gregory might govern a church as great as his genius; 
but his genius is so great that all the churches under 
the sun united in one could scarcely equal it. As this 
is impossible, let him consent to be bishop, not in order 
to receive any honour, but to honour by his presence 
the place of his residence. It is in fact” adds Basil 
“the sign of a great soul not merely to be capable 
of great things, but to make small things great by 
its own virtue.’*® Gregory did scarcely more than 
visit this uncongenial sphere of work, but spent most 
of his time in assisting his aged father at Nazianzus. 
He loyally supported Basil in his contest with 
Anthimus, but he deeply felt his unkindness in forcing 
him into such a position to gratify his hierarchical 
ambitions, and lamented in verse the ruin of a 


Gregory made 
bishop of Sasima. 


1. Basil, Zp. 98. 

2. Gregory of Nazianzus describes it in the Carmen de Vita sua, 
XI. 439—446, as a post town (ora0ués) where three ways met, without 
grass or water, dust everywhere, inhabited by a shifting population (féva re 
kal w\avw@pevo) and through which convicts and prisoners constantly passed. 
Gregory ends his description thus : "Avr Zacluwy rav éuay éxxdrnola. 

3. Basil, ZZ. 98, addressed to Eusebius of Samosata, Basil’s intimate 
friend. 

BB 


386 NICENE DOCTRINE EXPLAINED.  [CH. XvL 


long and close friendship. As the course of events 
will shew, Basil’s action caused irreparable harm to the 
Eastern Church by preventing Gregory’s election to the 
see of Constantinople. If this appointment of Gregory 
to Sasima be considered as a mistake on the part of 
Basil, we cannot with justice blame him for the far- 
reaching consequence of his error; nor can Gregory 
escape the reproach of having displayed a certain selfish 
petulance towards his friend. 
In the disputes arising out of Arianism 
a ae the most formidable obstacles in the way 
East and West, Of a reunion of the Church were, firstly 
the distrust of Athanasian doctrines felt 
by the Oriental bishops, and secondly the vacillations 
of the Semi-Arian party under the pressure of the 
imperial dislike of the Nicene theology. In addition 
to these hindrances, the cause of unity was threatened 
by the schism raging at Antioch and the incapacity 
of the Roman See to appreciate the situation in the 
East. It was the work of the three Cappadocians to 
convince the theologians of Asia Minor and Syria that 
the Athanasian doctrine was the right one, and that, 
to those who clearly distinguished between Substance 
(ovcia) and Person (é7récracis), all errors of a Sabellian 
type are rendered impossible.? The Semi-Arian party 
had, in 367, united outwardly with the orthodox believers 
at the synod of Tyana; but such men as Basil’s friend 
Eustathius of Sebaste were a perpetual cause of trouble 
to him, and when the breach between them occurred, 
Eustathius sought to do Basil all the injury in his power 


3. Carmen de Vita sua— 


mévoe Kowvol Adywr 
dudoreyds re Kal cuvécrios Blos, 
vous els ev GUOUD........... 20. 
Siecxédacra Tadra Kdppirra xaual, 
avpat pépovot ras madaas éAmldas. 


2. ‘The principal chiefs were the three eminent Cappadocian bishops, 
Basil, Gregory of Nazianzum, and Gregory of Nyssa. But their teaching 
in reality modified the aspect of the Nicene formulas. The term Ayfostaszs, 
instead of being a synonym of wsza, was used to designate a person 
or personal subject, in distinction from Substance. This use of the 
term became current in the East.” Fisher, Wzstory of Christian Doctrine, 
p- 143. . | 


CH. xv1.] BASIL AND ATHANASIUS, 387 


by publishing a letter which the latter had written years 
before to the heretic Apollinarius ‘as a layman to a 
layman”. Nor was Basil altogether happy in the 
attempt made by his too officious friend Gregory of 
Nazianzus to vindicate his reputation for orthodoxy 
in his treatment of the doctrine of the Holy Ghost.} 
To these troubles was added the difficulty of obtaining 
the assistance of the Roman See to allay the quarrels 
of Eastern Christendom. ‘The Roman bishop, Damasus, 
was resolved to support Paulinus at Antioch against 
Meletius, and seems to have resented Basil’s presumption 
in addressing him on equal terms, whilst Basil himself 
complains of the superciliousness of the West (ths dutuxys 
oppvos).2 A few letters passed between Basil and 
Athanasius, in which the bishop of Caesarea asked 
the help of the veteran champion of orthodoxy to assist 
him in pacifying the Church. Basil’s statesmanlike 
mind is well shewn in the following remark in one of 
his letters to Athanasius: “ We require” said he “men 
firm but kindly, who will shun causing new divisions 
by not unduly insisting on disputed points.’’® 


Death of After an episcopate of forty-seven years, 
Athanasius, | during which he had been on no less than 
A.D. 378. five different occasions exiled for the Faith, 


His character. Athanasius passed away. It is difficult 


to divest ourselves of preconceived notions in forming 
an estimate of his character. Posterity has either seen 
in him only the saint whom it is profane to judge asa 
man, or regards him solely from a modern standpoint, 


1. Basil, Z/. 223 to Eustathius of Sebaste, who accused him of 
favouring Apollinarius because he had written to him twenty years before. 
De Broglie (L’Zglise e¢ 2Empire) refers to Greg. Naz., Zp. 58, Basil, 
fp. 71. 

; 2 The chief letters of Basil on this subject are Zf. 70, which bears 
no address but was evidently intended for Damasus, Z//. 242, 243, to the 
Western bishops, and 239, where he complains to his friend Eusebius of 
Samosata of the ignorance and prejudices of Damasus, whom however he 
does not name. 

3. Basil’s letters to Athanasius are 61, 66, 68, 69. Marcellus of 
Ancyra is complained of, but it is satisfactory to know that Athanasius 
would not condemn the aged champion of Nicaea. ‘‘Even the great 
Alexandrian’s comprehensive charity” says Professor Gwatkin ‘‘is hardly 
nobler than his faithfulness to erring friends.” It is this chivalrous loyalty 
that makes Athanasius so much more attractive a character than Basil. 

BB 2 


388 CHARACTER OF ATHANASIUS, (CH. xvI.. 


considering him as the type of those ecclesiastics who 
have fettered the Faith by the imposition of unnecessary 
dogmas, and barred the way to heaven by the invention 
of unscriptural tests. Those, however, who take the 
latter view of his character must bear in mind that 
neither the Arian controversy nor the word opoovetos 
were originated by him, since when Arius and Alexander 
began their theological dispute he was a boy, and 
when the Creed was framed he was of no higher rank 
than that of a deacon. The controversy was one in 
which no Christian individual in the fourth century 
could avoid taking part, least of all the great pope 
of Alexandria, who was second only to the bishop of 
Rome in ecclesiastical status. It was moreover, at any 
rate till 361, a controversy out of which hardly a single 
great bishop except Julius of Rome emerged with 
credit, and he died before the keenest phase of the 
struggle had begun. Of Athanasius it may safely be 
said not only that he never vacillated in his belief, but 
that in no single instance does he seem to have been 
actuated by personal malice; though the treatment he 
experienced at the hands of the Mareotic commission 
and the council of Tyre might well have provoked him 
to retaliation. Moreover, though his long career was 
spent in controversy on a single point in theology, there 
is no sign either of narrowness or bigotry in his character. 
So far from cultivating a pedantic adherence to mere 
phrases and catch-words, Athanasius was singularly 
careful not to offend in this respect; and it is worth 
noticing that throughout his theological writings the 
test word ooovovos occurs very rarely.1 His frank 
willingness to welcome a former opponent to his side is 
an attractive feature in his character, and no one knew 
better how to smooth the path by which men could 
return from error to orthodoxy. The charm of his 
personal influence can only be estimated by its effect 
on others. Even Constantius could not resist it when 
Athanasius was present with him; and it is said that he 
was as much at home with the solitaries of the desert 


1. Preface to the four discourses against the Arians. Vicene and 
Post-Nicene Fathers, p. 303; see also Prolegomena to Athanasius, p. xviil. 


CH, xvI.] GREATNESS OF ATHANASIUS, 389 


and the working people of Alexandria as he was in the 
courts of emperors or in synods of bishops. Nor does 
Athanasius deserve the reproach of being the only 
man of his age who wished to narrow the limits of 
orthodoxy. In the fourth century, as the history of 
the Eusebian party proves, an indefinite creed was im- 
possible, and the genuine Arians, who were the real 
opponents of Athanasius, were as ready to force their 
dogmas on the Church as the pope of Alexandria. 
Without, however, pronouncing even on the relative 
merits of either defeated Arianism or the triumphant 
Faith of Nicaea, we have only to contrast the tortuous 
measures of his opponents with the honest consistency 
and fair dealing of Athanasius, to bring into clear 
light his immense moral superiority. Among the many 
great men whom the fourth century produced, Athanasius 
occupies a pre-eminence to which, perhaps, Ambrose 
of Milan alone approached.! 

Doctrinal Every religious controversy leaves a 
disputes arising fatal heritage of party rancour, and new 
out of the Arian subjects for disputation. By disregarding 

controversy. A é : 
the wise advice of Constantine, Alex- 
ander and Arius were responsible for the beginning 


I. It is curious to observe the diversity of judgment in regard to the 
character of St. Athanasius. Dean Milman (A2story of Christianity, vol. I. 
p. 411) says, ‘‘ Yet even now, so completely has this polemic spirit become 
incorporated with Christianity that the memory of Athanasius is regarded 
by wise and good men with reverence. ... It is impossible indeed not to 
admire the force of intellect which he centred on this minute point of 
theology, his intrepidity, his constancy ; but he had not the power to allay 
the feud which his inexorable spirit tended to keep alive.... Athanasius 
in exile would consent to no peace which did not prostrate his enemies 
under his feet.”” Cardinal Newman, on the other hand, in his Arians of the 
Fourth Century, p. 356, says ‘‘In the height of controversy he (Athanasius) 
speaks with temper and candour, evidences of an enlarged prudence, to say 
nothing of Christian charity.” See Gwatkin, Studzes of Arianism, pp. 66-70. 
Prolegomena to Athanasius, WVécene and Post-Nicene Fathers, p. \xvil. 
Athanasius was no doubt “ purified and softened” by the sufferings he had 
endured, when he wrote in 359 ‘‘ Towards those who accept all else that 
was written at Nicaea, but doubt about the duoovcrov only, we ought not to 
behave as though they were enemies, but we argue with them as brethren 
with brethren, seeing they have the same mind with ourselves, but only 
question the name.” Hort, Zwo Dzssertations, p. 94. The late Canon 
Jenkins ina pamphlet on this period (publ. 1894) does justice to Athanasius, 
who, as he points out, in his correspondence with Basil objects to any 
addition to the Creed of Nicaea as a test of orthodoxy. 


390 DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. [CcH. xvt. 


of an almost endless series of controversies, silenced 
only at last by the overwhelming triumphs of Islam. 
Macedonianism and Apollinarianism were the im- 
mediate offspring of Arianism; the one raising the 
question of the true position of the Holy Ghost in the 
‘Trinity, the other that of the relation of the Human 
to the Divine Nature in our Saviour. 

In attacking the proper Divinity of 
the Son, the theory of Arius naturally 
destroyed the Divine Nature, if not the Personality of 
the Spirit. At Nicaea however this question was not 
raised, and the Council was content with demanding 
a simple belief in the Holy Ghost. When the Semi- 
Arians were being reconciled to the Nicene doctrine, 
the question of the consubstantial Divinity of the Holy 
Ghost arose; the Nicene party asserting that it was 
the logical result of the belief in that of the Son, whilst 
some of the Semi-Arians, who took their party name 
from Macedonius, bishop of Constantinople, objected 
to the imposition of further tests of orthodoxy.’ —Though 
this controversy never assumed the dimensions of that 
on the relation of the Son to the Father, and aroused 
no great popular emotion, it caused Basil some trouble, 
owing to the officious though loyal partisanship of 
Gregory of Nazianzus. Basil desired to make the Creed 
as promulgated at Nicaea the sole test of orthodoxy, 
and was consequently accused of attaching too little 
importance to the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. After 
a sermon preached on September 7, 371, on the feast 
of St. Eupsychius, Gregory Nazianzen betrayed to a 
monk his view of the prominence which should be 
given to teaching the Godhead of the Holy Ghost, 


Macedonianism. 


1. The Arians taught that the Holy Spirit was, as a creation of the Son, 
practically a third essence in the Trinity, rd» yodr Adyor pyolv (says Athan- 
asius of Arius) els duoudrnra d5ééns Kal odclas addébrpLoy elvat wavTedds 
éxarépwv tov re Ilarépos kal rod aylov Ilvevuaros. Or. ¢. Avrianos, 1. 6. 
Swete, Aistory of the Doctrine of the Procession of the Holy Spirit, p. 79, 
Athanasius was in 358 compelled by the rise of the Tropici in Egypt to 


declare his opinions on the Holy Ghost in the letters to Serapion. Swete, — 


op. ctt., p. 91. The Council of Alexandria, A.D. 362, was the first to 
condemn those who deny the Divinity of the Spirit ; see Dzct. Chr. Biog., 
art. ‘Holy Ghost’; Gwatkin, Studies of Arianism, p. 206; Hefele, 
Councils, vol. 11., p. 277, Eng. Transl. 


ae 
wot Ss nee 
< ae es > 
en ea a ok 


CH. XVI.} _  APOLLINARIANISM, 391 


and attributed Basil’s reticence in the matter to his 
wisdom in using “economy” in declaring the truths of 
the Faith. This laid Basil open to an attack from the 
monk, and caused him much anxiety.! 
The subtlety of the Greek and Oriental 
ey ie n mind was destined to find a subject more 
of our Lord. {tuitful of dispute even than the mystery 
of the exact relationship of the Persons 
of the Trinity. As Arius had set the whole Church 
into confusion by trying to offer an explanation of 
the Divine Nature of the Son, so Apollinarius was the 
cause of an even more violent controversy by pro- 
pounding his theory of the way in which the Manhood 
was united with Godhead in the Person of the Saviour. 
But whereas Arius’s doctrine was the cause of an 
immediate explosion, that of Apollinarius seemed at 
first but a small spark, which only broke out into a 
mighty conflagration when years afterwards Nestorius 
attempted to refute his teaching. Apollinarius, who 
had taken a prominent part in trying to preserve for 
Christians the form of a classical education in the days 
of Julian, said that in the God-Man Jesus Christ the 
Divine Logos took the place of the rational Human Soul, 
so that our Lord was not truly man, but One who had 
the body of a living man whose impulses were solely 
those of the Word of God; in other words, that He was 
incapable not merely of yielding to, but even of feeling 
either human infirmity or the power of temptation.? 


Death of Valens Whilst a new brood of heresies were 
at Adrianople. thus beginning their fatal life in the 
Eastern Church, so far as the Roman Empire was 


1. Basil’s treatise on the Spirit was written in A.D. 374, at the 
request of his friend and disciple Amphilochius of Iconium. De Broglie, 
LD ELglise et ? Empire, vol. 11., pp. 123 foll. 

2. Socrates (II. 46) attributes the lapse of Apollinarius to George, the 
Arian bishop of Laodicaea, who persecuted him for his intimacy with 
Epiphanius the Sophist. Sozomen (v. 25) alludes to his early friendship 
with Athanasius. Theodoret, v. 3, and v.11. Basil (Zp. 129) says the 
impiety of Apollinarius is like that of Sabellius. There is a full account 
of his system in Neander, Church Hist., vol. Iv., pp. 98—106, and in 
Bethune-Baker, Christiau Doctrine, p. 239 f. Gwatkin (Studies of 
Arianism, pp. 206, 248) remarks; ‘‘If Apollinarius was forming another 
schism he was at least a determined enemy of Arianism.” There were 
two of the same name, father and son; the latter is the heresiarch. 


392 DEFEAT OF THE ROMANS. (CH. XVI. 


concerned the Arian ‘controversy was approaching 
its conclusion. Valens was still persecuting the 
orthodox and keeping bishops like Peter of Alexandria 
and Meletius of Antioch away from their flocks, but 
the fearful catastrophe with which his life and 
reign terminated was approaching. The Goths, who 
had crossed the Danube, were roused to fury by the 
peculations of the Roman officials entrusted with 
the work of settling them within the frontiers of the 
empire. War broke out in 377, in which the Roman 
armies were at first successful, but in the great battle 
of Adrianople the Goths gained a complete victory 
and Valens perished with his army.'! Since Hannibal’s 
victory at Cannae the Romans-had never known such 
a defeat; but whereas the young and vigorous republic 
could rise with renewed power to crush the victorious 
foe, the enfeebled empire seemed to have received a 
fatal stroke. It says much for the immense fund 
of vitality still possessed by the Romans, that the 
empire was not allowed entirely to succumb under this 
crushing blow. 
Valentinian, who had died in 375, 
Pape had been succeeded by his sons, Gratian 
ee “he wast and Valentinian II., the former being a 
youth, the latter an infant under the 
tutelage of his mother Justina. Gratian, who under 
the influence of Ambrose, bishop of Milan, was the 
first emperor to refuse the pagan title of Pontifex 
Maximus, acted with conspicuous wisdom and generosity 
in appointing as his colleague Theodosius, the son 
of the deliverer of Britain, who had fallen a victim to 
the jealousy of Valentinian.” The new Augustus, who 
had lived in retirement in his native Spain since the 
death of his father, immediately repaired to the East, 
and set himself to restore the shattered fortunes of the 
Empire. The Goths were, fortunately, too imperfectly 


1. Hodgkin, Jtaly and her Invaders, vol. 1., p. 286. Ammianus, 
bk. xxxi. 

2. Socrates (Iv. 19) connects the death of Theodosius—or Theodosidus 
as he calls him—with the inquisition into the crime of magic owing to the 
attempt to discover the successor of Valens. Beugnot, H/zst. du Paganisme, 
p- 242. Gibbon, chap. xxv. 


ae 


CH. Xv1.] BAPTISM OF THEODOSIUS, 393 


civilised to reap the full fruits of their victory. They 
advanced on Constantinople, but were repelled by the 
citizens animated by the courage of the widowed 
Empress Dominica; nor were their forces sufficiently 
organized to remain together for a long campaign.} 
Theodosius won no brilliant victory, but patiently 
waited while the Gothic hosts melted away, many 
enlisting in the Imperial armies and being employed 
in distant parts of the empire. In 379 Theodosius 
received baptism at the hands of Ascholius, bishop of 
Thessalonica, being the first of the rulers of the East 
who had been admitted to the Church by an orthodox 
prelate.” 
Basil died in the year that followed 
ahs etd the battle of Adrianople, shortly before 
His character. the triumph of the cause he had served 
so well. His death was a most serious 
loss to the Church, for had the orthodox party at 
Constantinople had the benefit of his firmness of 
character and sage advice, many fatal mistakes which 
were committed by them in 381 might have been 
avoided. What must strike us most is his astonishing 
versatility and energy. Basil is rightly considered 
one of the greatest of the Fathers; in him the 
scholar and the theologian were combined. His short 
episcopate of nine years had an abiding effect on 
the Eastern Church. He saved monasticism from 
degenerating into foolish extravagance and profitless 
asceticism, he arranged the services of the Church, he 
reformed the disorders of his vast province. In an 
age and country where inconsistency in _ religious 
principle was everywhere rife, Basil set the example 
of the most loyal adherence to the creed he professed, 
and the courage with which he refused to bow 
before Valens saved the cause of Nicaea in Asia 
Minor. Despite a certain harshness of character, and a 
tendency to confound the maintenance of his own 
dignity with the cause of Christianity, into which some 
saintly but less able prelates have occasionally fallen, 


1. Socrates, v. 1. The citizens were aided by Saracen auxiliaries, 
2. Socrates, v. 6. 


394 THE CHURCH OF THE ANASTASIA, [cH. XVI. 


Basil deserves the high honour which posterity has 
accorded to his memory.' 
New Rome was now the stronghold 
Gregory of Arianism, for since the deposition of 
of Nazianzus Paul there had never been an orthodox 
Constantinople. bishop, and the see had frequently been 
presided over by arch-heretics. Eusebius 
of Nicomedia the supporter of Arius, Macedonius the 
heresiarch, and Eudoxius the spiritual adviser of the 
Arian emperor Valens, had all been bishops of Con- 
stantinople. The work of proclaiming the Nicene Faith 
was undertaken by the saintly and amiable Gregory 
of Nazianzus, who in 378 commenced his labours in 
a room which subsequently became the church of the 
Anastasia? Despite the interruptions of the Arians, 
and Gregory’s own ill-timed confidence in the cynic 
Maximus,® who aspired to the bishopric, the work 
progressed, as the great eloquence of Gregory combined 
with his moral earnestness won numerous adherents. 
Theodosius did not enter the capital till Nov. 24, 380, 
when he ordered the Arian bishop Demophilus to 
conform to the doctrine of Nicaea or to leave the 
city. After quoting the Saviour’s words, “When they 
persecute you in one city flee to another,” Demophilus 


I. Prolegomena to Basil, Mzcene and Post-Nicene Fathers, p. xxxii. 
**St. Basil is duly canonized in the grateful memory, no less than in the 
official bede-roll of Christendom, and we may be permitted to regret that 
the existing Calendar of the Anglican liturgy has not found room for so 
illustrious a doctor in its somewhat niggard list.” For the omission some 
amends have lately been made by the erection of a statue of the great 
bishop of Caesarea under the dome of St. Paul’s. Bp. Wordsworth 
places him in his proposed Anglican Calendar on Jan. 1. A/intstry of 
Grace, p. 426. 

2. Dr. Hodgkin (in his /taly and her Invaders, vol. I., p. 343) says, 
‘‘The mosque of Mehmet Pasha on the south-west of the Hippodrome 
and overlooking the sea of Marmora still marks the site of the Church 
of the Resurrection.” St. Jerome became Gregory’s pupil at this time. 
Dict. Chr. Biog., art. ‘Gregory of Nazianzus,’ vol. Il, p. 7514. 

Gregory was so infatuated with Maximus—or Heron as he was 
also called—that he pronounced an oration in his honour. Peter of 
Alexandria recognised him as bishop, and he was consecrated by five 
Egyptian bishops, who finished the ceremony in a flute-player’s shop. 
He fled to Alexandria, and wanted Peter himself to retire in his favour } 
Greg. Naz., Carmen de Vita sua, Xt. 808 foll. Dzct. Chr. Biog., art. 
‘ Gregory of Nazianzus’, vol. Il. p. 752. 


CH. XVI.] . GREGORY RESIGNS, 395 


departed. The Emperor now decided that Gregory 
should be enthroned in the Church of the Apostles, 
whither he was conducted through a hostile crowd. 
But the honour of numbering Gregory of Nazianzus 
among its bishops was never to belong to Constantinople. 
In 381 one hundred and fifty bishops 
Bisetenuropic assembled at Constantinople to settle 
the affairs of the Church. The Council 

accepted the Creed of Nicaea, but in what form it is 
not easy to determine.* ‘The question of the bishopric 
of Constantinople was also decided. If work done for 
the Faith or personal reputation had been considered, 
Gregory must have been universally acknowledged as 
best fitted for the post. He was, however, not popular 
with several members of the Council. Timothy, bishop 
of Alexandria, irritated probably by the successful fraud 
by which Maximus had persuaded the Alexandrian 
Church to recognise his claims, bore Gregory no good 
will. Gregory’s indifference to the relative claims 
of Meletius and Paulinus to the see of Antioch provoked 
the hostility of the supporters of the former, who did 
not like to be told that the quarrel would not be worth 
continuing if it had been about two angels instead of 
two men. The canonical objection that Gregory was 
bishop of Sasima, and could not be translated to another 
see, was raised. Weary with the clamour, Gregory 


I. Socr., v.7. Mistaking, as the historian avers, the true meaning of 
the passage. The ‘other city’ is the Heavenly Jerusalem ! 

2. ‘This great religious revolution was effected without bloodshed. 
Gregory, Carmen, XI. 1325 foll. 

3. The case is briefly this: the modern form, in which the Nicene 
Creed is now used, appears with a few divergencies in the Azcoratus 
of St. Epiphanius, A.D. 373, and this was acknowledged at Chalcedon, 
A.D. 452, to be the creed of the hundred and fifty Fathers at Con- 
stantinople. It was not, however, noticed by the Fathers at Ephesus. 
Prot. Gwatkin in his Artan Controversy (Epochs of Church History), 
p- 159, insists vehemently on the original Nicene Creed having been 
the only symbol recited at Constantinople. Hort ( Zwo Déssertations ) 
argues that the so-called Constantinopolitan Creed was the Creed of St. 
Cyril and the Church of Jerusalem. Heurtley, De Fide e¢ Symbol; 
Bright, Canons of the First Four Councils, p. 91; Lias, Nicene Creed, 
p- 3; and especially Lumby, A7story of the Creeds, p. 80, where the 
enthusiastic reception of the Creed of Nicaea at Chalcedon is contrasted 
with the colder welcome accorded to the creed of the hundred and fifty 
Fathers of Constantinople. Hahn, Syméole, p. 81. 


396 ELECTION OF NECTARIUS. [CH, XV1, 


offered to stand aside, and his offer was eagerly 
accepted by the bishops.1. The man chosen was a cour! 
official named Nectarius, a layman who was not even 
baptized.2. Though he made a respectable bishop, his 
appointment wasa fatal blunder. Constantinople, as the 
New Rome, had been given a presidency of honour but no 
metropolitical jurisdiction. The see had never yet had 
an orthodox prelate of the first rank. It needed that 
a man of world-wide reputation should be appointed 
as the first bishop after the establishment of the Nicene 
Faith, and the confirmation of the new dignity of the 
see. Gregory, if not pre-eminent as an administrator, 
was by far the greatest theologian and orator in the 
Eastern Church, and would have given immense prestige 
to the see of New Rome. Under Nectarius the influence 
of the bishop of Constantinople was so slight, that when. 
a really great man succeeded to the episcopal throne 
in the person of St. Chrysostom, he was worsted and 
driven into exile by a frivolous empress. To the election 
of Nectarius may perhaps be partly attributed the fact 
that no bishop of Constantinople in later days ever 
became a great power in Christendom. 

Equally unfortunate was the Council in the matter 
of the schism at Antioch. It had been agreed between 
the partisans of Meletius and Paulinus that the survivor 
should be generally acknowledged bishop. No doubt 
it was expected that Paulinus would die first; but 
when Meletius passed away during the sitting of the 
Council, the bishops disregarded the compact and 
elected Flavian. The Westerns were naturally disgusted 
at this breach of faith, and the Roman see long refused 
to acknowledge the acts of the Council.® 

Though the Council of Constantinople 
Importance of the was not conspicuous for the number of 

econd : : eet 3 

General Council, bishops present, the eminence of its indi- 

vidual members, nor the wisdom of its acts, 

and though by it Gregory of Nazianzus was forced to 
1. Gregory Naz., Carmen, XI. 1591 foll. - 

2. Nectarius was the praetor of Constantinople. He was selected 

for the see by Theodosius. He kept up a friendly correspondence with 

Gregory of Nazianzus. Socrates (v. 8), Sozomen (III. 8), and Theodoret 


(v. 8), all agree in praising his high character and amiability. 
3. Bright, Canons of the First Four General Councils, p. 110. 


CH. XVI.] A NEW ERA BEGINS. 397 


retire into private life resolved never to attend another 
assembly of bishops, its work was in a sense more 
permanent than that of any other council. After two 
other assemblies in 382 and 383, which have been 
sometimes confounded with that of 381, Arianism 
was declared to be contrary to Roman law, and the 


Nicene Faith became the acknowledged creed of the 


empire." 

With Theodosius’s edicts in favour of orthodoxy 
we pass into a new period. Under Constantine Christi- 
anity and the Roman empire were allied. Under 
Theodosius they were united. Arianism long lingered 
among the barbarians, and orthodoxy became the badge 
of a Roman citizen. From henceforth the idea grew 
apace that the State was responsible for the maintenance 
of the true Faith among its subjects. With this we pass 
into a new sphere, and for centuries a theory of govern- 
ment began to prevail, that has not yet been entirely 
relegated to oblivion. 


1. As early as 380 Theodosius had ordered all to receive the Faith as 
taught by Damasus of Rome and Peter of Alexandria. 

A very important question has been raised by Dr. Harnack in his 
History of Dogma (vol. 11., p. 262; Eng. Tr, vol. Iv., p. 94), that the 
Council of Constantinople accepted the word duoovcros, but in a different 
sense to that in which Athanasius had used it. The same writer points out 
in another passage (vol. 11., p. 266; E. Tr. vol. Iv., p. 99) that the omission 
of the words from the Nicene formula é« r#s ovctas rod Ilarpés in the 
Constantinopolitan creed as well as the anathemas is a proof of this. He 
means that the Fathers of the Council of 381, following Basil of Ancyra, 
Meletius, and the Cappadocians, adopted the word opoovatos in the sense of 
duovovaros (of like substance). Of course this would mean that all the work 
of Nicaea was stultified by the neo-orthodoxy of Constantinople. This 
position has been assailed with much theological skill and learning by the 
Rev. J. F. Bethune-Baker, B.D., in the Cambridge Texts and Studies, 
The Meaning of Homooustos, 1901. In the Chréstian Letter, addressed to 
Hooker after the publication of the Fifth Book of The Laws of Ecclesiastical 
Polity, the Puritan asks ‘‘ Here we crave of you, Master Hoo., to 
explain your own meaning where you say, ‘ The Father alone is originally 
that Deity which Christ originally is not’: how the Godhead of the Father 
and of the Son be all one, and yet originally not the same Deity !” 
The marginal note of Hooker’s copy preserved in the Library of C.C.C., 
Oxford, is ‘* The Godhead of the Father and the Son is in no way denied 
but granted to be the same. ‘The only thing denied is that the Person of 
the Son hath Deity or Godhead in such sort as the Father hath it.” It 
would seem that Hooker’s position is much the same as that of the 
Cappadocians. His point, which the Puritan has missed, being that the 
Father is the rny OcdryrTos. 


CHAPTER XVII. 


THE REIGN OF THEODOSIUS AND THE 
FALL OF PAGANISM. 


Tueoposius had anticipated the work 

Theodosius of the Second General Council in an edict 
Proavout of Published at Thessalonica on February 28, 
Orthodoxy. A.D. 380, addressed to the people of Con- 
stantinople, in which he ordered that the 

Faith taught to the Romans by St. Peter, and still 
held by Damasus of Rome and Peter of Alexandria, 
should be accepted by all nations. From henceforward 
the title of Catholic was to be reserved for those who 
adored the Father, Son and Holy Ghost with equal 
reverence.| The entire religious policy of this emperor 
was directed to this end, and resulted in the Catholic 
Faith becoming the one legal religion of the Romans.? 
If Arianism, banished from the Empire, found a home 
among its barbarian conquerors, it lost the prestige of 
being recognised by the laws of the civilised world. 
It did not, however, succumb without a struggle; for, 
though suppressed by edicts of ever-increasing severity, 
it made its stronghold among the barbarian soldiers 
in the Roman armies, whom no emperor could offend 


1. Cod. Theod., lib. XvI., tit. 1, 2. Sozomen, VII. 4. 

2. Though Theodosius did not directly endow the Catholic Church, 
he conferred several valuable privileges, and gave legal recognition to 
many Church customs. Allard summarises as follows : ‘‘ He forbade the 
summoning of a bishop as a witness: allowed neither criminal trial nor 
corporal punishment during Lent: placed Easter and Sunday among 
public holidays : allowed no amphitheatrical games on Sundays: forbade 
Jews to buy Christian slaves; and many other similar regulations are 
recorded.” (See Allard, Le Christianisme et 21 Empire Romain, p. 264.) 


CH. XVII.] _ EDICTS OF THEODOSIUS. 399 


with impunity; but even these rude mercenaries were 
awed by the majesty of the Catholic Church, when 
confronted by a bishop of the commanding personality 
of St. Ambrose. Despite the severity of the edicts 
which appeared under the name of Theodosius, we 
have the express testimony of the historian Socrates 
that this emperor was no persecutor;' and we may 
perhaps explain this discrepancy by supposing that his 
busy and laborious reign left him no time to enforce 
with minute rigour the laws enacted by him.’ If, 
however, we acquit him of the actual guilt of persecu- 
tion, it is impossible to deny that he inaugurated a 
policy which his successors did not shrink from carrying 


into practice. 
Arianism was not, however, completely 
mcrae: ot suppressed in Constantinople by the so- 
Constantinople. called Second General Council. There 
had never been a Catholic bishop in the 
city since the deposition of Paulus (circa a.p. 338); and 


the forcible installation of Gregory of Nazianzus, 


I. Socr., Vv. 20. Tofro 5é¢ loréov, ws 6 Bactheds Oeoddctos oddéva 
Trovrwy édlwKe, mAnv Sri rov Evvéusov év Kwvrorarvrivovrbve éni olxlas 
cuvdyovra, Kal rods svyypadévras att Adbyous émidecxviuevov, ws Tals 
didackadlats woAddovs Avuavduevov els eLoplay reuPOjvac éxéXevoe. In an 
earlier chapter (vii.) Socrates relates the banishment of Demophilus from 
Constantinople ; and (c. x.) says that only the sect of the Novatians were 
allowed churches within the city. There are fifteen edicts of Theodosius 
in the Code, and these are of increasing severity. It is not certain that the 
law was always enforced. Dr. Hodgkin (/éaly and her Invaders, bk. 1., ch. 6) 
thinks that it was some time before they could be universally acted upon. 
“*But none the less” he adds ‘‘ was the Theodosian legislation ultimately 
successful in the suppression of all teaching opposed to the Creed of Nicaea, 
and the victory thus won exercised an immense and, in my view, a 
disastrous influence on the fortunes of the Empire, of Christianity, and 
even of Modern Europe.” Gregory Nazianzen (Carmen ae Vita sua, vv. 
1279—1395) speaks slightingly of Theodosius and finds fault with his 
toleration. ‘* The fact is that during Theodosius’s reign, intolerance towards 
the cult was combined with the greatest tolerance towards persons.” 
Allard, Le Chréstzanisme et fT Empire Romain, p. 274. 

2. ‘There follow in 381, 382, 384, 388, 389, 394, laws against the 
heretics—Eunomians, Arians, Apollinarians, Macedonians, Manichaeans— 
confiscating their churches and handing them over to the Catholics, 
forbidding their assemblies, exiling their bishops and priests, confiscating 
all the places where their rites were celebrated. Zhe great number 
of these laws, several of which are repeated, prove that they were not 
everywhere carried out.” P. Allard, Le Christianisme et [Empire Romain, 


p- 263. 


400 COUNCILS IN CONSTANTINOPLE,  [CH. XVIL 


followed by his speedy retirement during the Council, 
was not calculated to strengthen the party now in the 
ascendant. Demophilus, who was still a leader of the 
Arian party, and had influential supporters, was able 
to assemble his followers outside the walls. In fact, 
Catholicism in the capital of the Eastern Empire was 
in a somewhat precarious condition, which its dis- 
sensions, as revealed by the Council in a.p. 381, did 
not render more secure. ‘Though the Western bishops 
seem to have desired a Council at Alexandria, Theo- 
dosius felt it incumbent upon him to settle the Arian 
dispute at Constantinople, and for this reason a second 
assembly was held in a.p. 382 consisting chiefly of 
the bishops who had been present in the preceding 
year. To emphasise his adherence to Catholicism 
and the triumph of the Creed of Nicaea the Emperor 
ordered the body of Bishop Paulus to be brought to 
Constantinople from Cucusum in Armenia, and interred 
it with much pomp in the church “which” (says Socrates) 
“beareth his name unto this day”’.} 
eee ; Nectarius felt scarcely competent to 
the Novatians, @¢al with doctrinal questions ; and when 
Theodosius, in A.D. 383, ordered the 
different religious sects to assemble for a conference, 
the bishop of Constantinople felt considerable trepida- 
tion as to its result. Having been all his life engaged 
in secular affairs, Nectarius could not hope to meet the 
Arian theologians on equal terms, and apparently he 
had no orthodox doctor at hand with whom he could 
confer. Accordingly he sought advice of the Novatian 
bishop, Agelius, who referred him to a Reader of his 
church, by name Sisinnius. ‘The Novatians were as 
staunch supporters of the Homéousian Faith as the 
Catholics; but even Sisinnius, though he bore the 
reputation of being mighty in the Scriptures, had no 
desire for a contest with such skilled dialecticians as 
Demophilus, Eleusius and Eunomius, the Arian 
champions. He accordingly advised Nectarius to 
suggest that the Emperor should simply ask the 
Arian leaders if they were in agreement with the 


1. Socrates, v. 9. 


CH. XVII. ] _ HERESY PROSCRIBED. 401 


ancient Fathers of the Church. By this means the 
enemies of the Nicene Faith would be placed in a 
dilemma; since if they refused to accept the Fathers 
they could be anathematized without further discussion, 
and if they acknowledged their authority they could 
be proved to be heretics. Theodosius, finding that the 
question suggested had caused division amongst the 
various Arian factions, ordered each leader to state 
his views in writing. Having prayed earnestly before 
perusing the different Creeds, the Emperor destroyed 
all such as “derogated from the unity which is in the 
Blessed Trinity”. For their services at this crisis the 
Novatianist schismatics were from this time forward 
the only non-Catholic body permitted to worship 
publicly in Constantinople. 

Heresy had now become a crime 
against the state; and imperial edicts 
against it began to fill the statute 
book. In a.p. 381, the year of the Council, Arians, 
Photinians and Eunomians were forbidden to build 
churches in place of those taken from them. In the 
following year the Manichaeans were ordered to be 
sought out by inquisitors. In July 383, heretical 
worship was prohibited; and in the following Sep- 
tember building of churches and holding of ordina- 
tions were forbidden to those outside the pale of 
the Church Catholic. Gregory of Nazianzus found 
the Apollinarians active in establishing bishops, and, 
perhaps at his instigation, a further edict appeared 
against the Macedonian, Arian, and Apollinarian clergy. 
A still more stringent edict was issued by Theodosius 
and the younger Valentinian against the Apollinarians. 
Eunomius and his followers were put outside the pale 
of the law in 389.2 The principle of persecution was 
in fact fully admitted by the legislation of Theodosius ; 
but it is doubtful if he was able to put his laws into 
practice. The power of the Empire was on the wane, 
and it was easier to issue edicts than to enforce them. 
The Arians had ardent supporters among the barbarian 


Edicts against 
heresy. 


1. Socrates, v. 10. 
2. Dict. Christ. Biog., art. ‘Theodosius the Great’, vol. Iv., p. 962 a 
cc 


402 FALL OF ARIANISM.  __ [cH xvi. 


soldiery, who had embraced this form of Christianity, 
and no emperor had the hardihood to offend the 
best troops in the Roman armies. But, as far as 
the empire was concerned, the Arian controversy was 
virtually at an end. No really strong supporters of 
the once popular heresy appeared after the reign of 
Theodosius, and it had always been inferior to 
Catholicism in religious force. We turn from it to 
the even more embittered theological disputes of the 
fifth century. 

Before, however, completely aban- 
posta and doning this subject it is necessary to 
Gregory of | Speak of the deaths of the last Eastern 
ere champions of the Homdousion. Gregory 

™ """" of Nazianzus and his name-sake of Nyssa 
long survived their friend and brother the great St. Basil. 
The two surviving Cappadocian Fathers lacked that 
genius for command which made St. Basil one of the 
leading spirits of his age; but intellectually they 
were both his equals, if not his superiors. Gregory 
returned, not a little disgusted with the ways of 
Councils and the intrigues of the bishops, to his home 
at Nazianzus, where he administered the see as he 
had done in his father’s life-time. He was not 
a little troubled by the difficulty of finding a 
suitable bishop for the place, and by the progress of 
Apollinarianism in the district. At last Eulalius, a 
kinsman of Gregory’s, was chosen bishop of Nazianzus, 
and Gregory himself retired to a little estate of his 
own at Arianzus. He occupied himself with his 
poetry and in corresponding with his friends; but his 
health was never vigorous, and his bodily strength 
had been impaired by asceticism. He died in 389 
Or 390. 


Of all Greek Fathers Gregory alone, like St. John, 
is honoured with the title of ‘the Divine’, being 
known to posterity as the Theologus. In his writings, 
and especially in his five great discourses against the 
Arians at Constantinople, Gregory may be said to have 
pronounced the last word in the controversy, at least 
with regard to the Divinity and _ consubstantiality 
of the Son; for in the matter of the Holy Spirit his 


cH. xvi.] THE CHURCH AND CULTURE. 403 


language, though orthodox, is more ambiguous.! As a 
practical ruler Gregory was not successful; he was 
essentially a thinker and a student, besides being a 
poet of some merit. As a preacher he may perhaps 
be pronounced as the first great orator the Church 
produced, and the conversion of Constantinople to 
orthodoxy is no mean tribute to the persuasiveness of 
his eloquence. 
The name of Gregory of Nyssa figures 
saath and gi 80 little in ecclesiastical history, that we 
Gidgury of Ny sia; are liable to forget that he ranks among 
c. A.D. 395. the greatest of the Fathers of the Eastern 
Church. He survived his friend several 
years, and died about a.p. 395. At the Council of 
Constantinople he pronounced the funeral oration over 
Meletius, for whom all the three Cappadocian Fathers 
had the highest reverence. He was apparently not at 
the Council of 382; but in 383 he delivered his 
discourses on the Second and Third Persons of the 
Trinity at Constantinople. Gregory is the most philo- 
sophical of the Fathers, and had the courage to follow 
Origen even in his boldest speculations.” His teaching 
as to the purpose of the Incarnation and the nature 
of the Atonement was long accepted as the doctrine 
of the Church at large: but he was too original to 
escape entirely the reproach of wandering beyond the 
limits of strict orthodoxy, and his language respecting 
the two-fold nature of our Lord would scarcely have 
passed without criticism when that controversy was at 
its height.® 
The three Cappadocians, Basil and the two 
Gregorys, belong to the period when the Church seemed 
to be most disposed to adopt all that was best in Greek 
culture. The unquestionably Christian and ascetic 

1. Swete, History of the Doctrine of the Procession of the Holy 
Spirit, p. 105. 

2. This is seen notably in his doctrine of the droxardoracts. Man’s 
power of choice between good and evil cannot ultimately defeat God’s 
purpose. God must finally be all in all. Even Satan will be purified and 
restored. wv. Srawley, Catechetical Oration of Gregory of Nyssa, in the 
Cambridge Patristic Texts, p. xxiii. 

3. Harnack, History of Dogma, vol. Iv., pp. 84—105. The 
Rev. J. R. Srawley’s ‘Cappadocian Theology’, in Hastings’ Dzctionary 
of Neligions 

coz 


404. PAGANISM STILL STRONG. (cH. XVII. 


character of the three great Fathers renders all suspicion 
of temporising with Hellenism superfluous; yet undoubt- 
edly they displayed a culture and liberality of thought 
which would not have been so acceptable in the follow- 
ing centuries as it was in their less bigoted age. 

The fourth century, which opened with 
Hellenism in the ascendant as a perse- 
cuting religion, closed with the downfall 
of the official cultus of the Roman empire. The 
position of Constantine and his immediate successors 
was not unlike that of the English monarch who, 
though officially head of the state religion, was privately 
attached to a different form of worship. As has been 
shewn in the account of his reign, Constantine was 
above all things politic in his attitude towards the old 
religion. As Pontifex Maximus he was its official head, 
temples were erected in his honour, and he was deified 
after his death. His enactments, if actually hostile to 
the ancient cultus, were professedly directed against 
immoral practices or illegal magic. Constantius, 
though he issued decrees prohibiting sacrifices and 
closing the temples, was in other respects careful to 
avoid hurting the religious susceptibilities of those who 
were probably the majority of his subjects. Julian 
acted strictly within his legal rights when he made his 
celebrated attempt to restore Hellenism as the cultus — 
of the Empire. Valentinian’s policy was that of 
absolute impartiality, and his brother Valens seems 
not to have shewn the bias against heathenism which 
he displayed towards the Nicene Christians. In Rome, 
at least, temples and priesthoods enjoyed their ancient 
revenues and official position, and in the administra- 
tion of the Empire it could not have been easy to 
recognise how great a change in conviction had taken 
place, 


Position of 
Paganism. 


The education and literature of the 
pag ae age shewed no traces of the influence of 
Institutions, Christianity. Youths whose family had 

been Christians for generations passed 


through the same course of study as those of heathen 


1. For the position of Constantine and Constantius see Beugnot, 
Chute du Paganisme, passim. 


CH. XVIL] RUIN OF HEATHENISM. 405 


parentage, and attended the lectures of professors 
openly hostile to the new Faith. Then as now the 
classics formed the basis of a sound education, and no 
act of Julian was so resented as the edict forbidding 
Christians to expound them. So much a matter of 
course was it for Christian youths to be educated on 
the ancient lines, that their religion did not interfere 
with the social amenities of life, and very real friend- 
ships existed between them and their Hellenist masters 
and companions.’ The secular life of an educated 
man was necessarily under the ancient influences; 
Christianity affected but little the course of adminis- 
tration of the Empire; and its spirit was unable to 
penetrate the vast structure of the Roman law. ‘The 
foundations of a civilization, which had _ been laid 
centuries earlier, were still the same, and the Roman 
empire never became a Christian institution in the 
sense that its Teutonic successor did. It adopted 
Christianity, it never incorporated it. 

Yet the organization of the old cultus collapsed 
with remarkable celerity. It is hardly an exaggera- 
tion to say that in a.p. 380 it seemed to be almost 
unimpaired, and by a.p. 400 it was gone. In the 
reign of Theodosius a series of crushing blows was 
inflicted. 

The question of what was to be done 

Wacuistona with the temples was a difficult one, as 
the government was naturally desirous 

to preserve the buildings for public uses. But the 
spirit of destruction was more powerful than any 


imperial edict. The monks were zealous and intrepid 


assailants of the monuments of idolatry; and the 
bishops exercised influence in support of their actions. 
Probably the towns suffered least; for there the old 
beliefs had least vitality, and the sight of the monu- 
ments of the old religion did not revive it; but in 
the country districts the ancestral worship was still 
vigorous, and the Christians began to call the ancient 
creed Paganism, as the religion of the pagani or 


1. Dill, Zhe Last Century of the Western Empire. 


406 RIOT AT ALEXANDRIA, — (CH. XVII. 


rustics.! As long as the temples stood in rural districts, 
strongholds of idolatry remained, and the zeal shewn in 
levelling them to the ground was prompted by a 
conviction that till they were destroyed the old cults 
could not be rooted out. | 

Two examples of the iconoclasm of 
the age are worthy of notice; one in the 
capital of Egypt, and the other in the country 
districts of Gaul. The fall of the Serapeum and the 
career of St. Martin of Tours are alike illustrative of 
the times. 

The Serapis worship was characteristic of a city 
so cosmopolitan as Alexandria. To many the god 
represented the embodiment of -all divinity. Though 
comparatively modern, in the fourth century his temple 
was the centre of Egyptian worship; and the rise of the 
Nile was considered by all, including even the Christian 
inhabitants of Alexandria, to depend upon the will of 
the god. 

Religious bitterness was stronger at Alexandria 
than elsewhere. The turbulent city was distracted by 
the three rival mobs of Jews, heathen, and Christians, 
each animated by implacable hostility against the two 
others, and capable of any crime when its passions 
were once aroused. The power of the Christian 
‘pope’ rivalled, nay at times surpassed, that of the 
Roman governor, and this great office was, for over 
half a century perhaps, held by members of a single 
family. Theophilus (385—412) and Cyril (412—444) were 
uncle and nephew, and Dioscorus (444—452) was Cyril’s 
archdeacon; these able if not always scrupulous men > 
maintained a tradition of vigorous policy in the Church. 
Since the days of George of Cappadocia, the usurping 
bishop in the time of Athanasius, there had been fore- 
bodings of a determined attempt to overthrow idolatry in 
the city, and within five-and-twenty years of the death of 


The Serapeum. 


1. The original Christian use of the word paganus seems to have been 
in contrast with wzz/es (the soldier of the Cross). In Tertullian fides pagana 
means ‘civic duty’, De Corona, x1. Non-Christians are people who 
have not taken the oath of service to God or Christ. Harnack, Axpanscon 
of Christianity, vol. 11., p. 22, Eng. Trans. Ulphilas, Prudentius, and 
Orosius maintain the ordinary explanation of the term as given in the text. 


CH. XVII. ] THE SERAPEUM DESTROYED. 407 


George at the hands of the heathen mob, the Christians 
felt strong enough to carry out their purpose. According 
to the historian Socrates, who himself had conversed 
with eye-witnesses of the great riot, Theophilus had 
obtained leave to destroy the temples in Alexandria. 
The work of demolition was carried on in such a way 
as to give the greatest possible offence to the Hellenic 
party. The Mithraeum was laid in ruins, and the rites 
practised exposed toridicule. Foul or indecent symbols, 
taken from thence or from the Temple of Dionysus 
(Osiris), were paraded through the streets. The heathen 
took refuge in the Serapeum,' a vast temple which stood 
On an eminence outside the city. In grandeur it was 
said to be rivalled by the Capitol of Rome alone, 
and here the enemies of Christianity made their last 
stand. Not only did they defend themselves with all 
the fury of despair, but they made numerous sallieg 
and took many prisoners, putting them to cruel deaths. 
Helladius, a priest of Zeus, who afterwards lectured in 
Constantinople, told Socrates that he had slain nine 
Christians with his own hand. Olympius, a philosopher, 
defended the Serapeum and refused to surrender till the 
Emperor’s pleasure was known. At last the edict arrived 
ordering the destruction of all the temples; once 
more the Christian mob ascended to the Serapeum, and 
attacked with such fury that its defenders abandoned it. 
Theophilus ‘entered the sanctuary and saw the sacred 
image. Serapis was depicted as a venerable man seated, 
with hands outstretched from wall to wall. Even the 
Christians were dismayed at the idea of demolishing 
an emblem of such power and majesty. But Theophilus 
did not share their fears. He bade the soldier at his 
side strike hard, and the head of the image was lopped 
off; within it was a nest of mice; and Serapis was 
laid low amid the jeers of the triumphant followers 
of the bishop.2 Yet a fear was felt that the Nile 
would not rise, and Theophilus shared therein enough 


1. Allard (0%. cit., p. 272) says, ‘*The insults of the bishop roused 
the heathen to revolt, and they made the Serapeum their headquarters.” 

2. Sozomen, VII. 15. Socrates (v. 16) gives a more confused 
account: he says that he had himself conversed with heathen philosophers 
who had taken part in the riot. 


408 PAGANISM IN GAUL. —__s [cH xvil. 


to say “Better Egypt should remain unwatered than 
that the Nile should rise by enchantments.” But that 
year, it is said, the river rose higher than ever, till men 
feared a flood! The gods of Egypt were no more, and 
monks assailed their prostrate forms with impunity. 
Sr A ial In the West the same work of de- 
phate: struction went on. The most popular 
Saint of Gaul, to whom one of the 
earliest churches in England is dedicated,? was both 
the evangelist of the country and the demolisher of its 
former objects of worship. St. Martin, who was made 
bishop of Tours in a.pD. 371, made an extraordinary 
impression on his age, not only by the innumerable 
miracles attributed to him, but~also by the affection 
he inspired by his ready charity and intrepid zeal. The 
founder of Monasticism in Gaul, Martin had the 
support of his monks in his contest with Paganism. If 
he deserves the blame of a ruthless iconoclast,’ a 
destroyer of priceless works of art, Martin was not a 
fanatic of so dangerous a type as Theophilus. The 
ruin of images, not of men, marked the progress of 
the Saint, and Paganism did not in Gaul, as at 
Alexandria, furnish its martyrs.‘ 
bat ‘ That the imperial legislation against 
Priscillianiem, error was beginning to bear its fatal 


fruit is seen in the enforcement of the 


letter of the law against heresy in the province of Gaul, 
the scene of St. Martin’s labours. The case of Priscillian 
and his companions revealed to the Christian world what 
the legislation of Theodosius and his pious advisers 
really meant; and the horror which the execution of 
these heretics inspired shewed that public feeling in 


1. Theodoret, v. 22. Sozomen, VII. 20, 

2. That of St. Martin at Canterbury. 

3. Even in his iconoclasm, so distasteful to modern feeling, St. 
Martin rendered a great service. ‘‘If St. Martin and his followers had not 
a thousand times braved death to pull down rustic chapels and sacred trees, 
the countries of the West would have remained through the ages the refuge 
of the gravest superstition.”’ Allard, p. 285. 

. M. Gaston Boissier remarks that St. Martin was a typical 
Frenchman, ‘‘ La France n’existait pas encore, et pourtant Martin est un 
saint francais.” La Fin du Paganisme, vol. 1., p. 62; see also p. 66, 
Sulpicius Severus is the biographer of St. Martin. See also his Dia/ogues 
with Postumianus, and his Azstoria Sacra. 


- Se ee 2 ee - 


CH. XVII. ] THE SPANISH HERESY. 409 


the Church was not yet ripe for such ruthlessness. At 
the risk of somewhat anticipating matters we propose 
to consider this instance of the severity of the law. 

Valentinian died in 375, and was succeeded by his 
sons Gratian and Valentinian II. Gratian, a worthy 
and amiable youth, allowed his infant brother and 
stepmother to reign at Milan whilst he himself urtdertook 
the active administration of Gaul. In 383 he was 
put to death by Maximus, who had been proclaimed 
emperor in Britain. Magnus Maximus, like Theodosius 
a Spaniard, had been a dependent of that emperor’s 
family. Heresy, which had always prevailed in southern 
Gaul in Gnostic and Manichaean forms, had permeated 
the adjacent countries, and had made its appearance 
in Spain in a new aspect known as Priscillianism. In 
the suppression of these opinions the laws enacted by 
the Spaniard Theodosius were first put into active 
operation by his countryman Maximus. 

Marcus, a native of Memphis in Egypt, suddenly 
appeared in Spain, and taught the opinions which he 
had adopted to a lady named Agape, and to Helpidius: 
a rhetorician. The fascination of the new doctrine 
seems to have consisted chiefly in its uncompromising 
asceticism, which suited the ever increasing desire of 
the time for monastic austerities. The doctrines of 
Marcus were Gnostic, or perhaps Manichaean, in 
character, and many of these were kept secret by the 
sectaries, who regarded the letter of Scripture sufficient 
for the vulgar. Dissimulation as to their true opinions 
seems to have been with them a matter of principle, 
and was not regarded as blame-worthy. A sect so 
attractive in its austerity and so secret as to its 
methods, was sure to spread its influence rapidly in 
a country like Spain, which has always been remarkable 
for the fiery energy of its religious zeal. 

A leader was found in a young and 
wealthy layman named Priscillian, full of 
zeal for a mystical and ascetic doctrine 
so much in consonance with the spirit of the age. 
Neither time nor money were spared in organizing a 
party, and the new opinions pervaded the Peninsula. 
The clergy began to be numbered among the converts, 


Synod of 
Saragossa. 


410 PRISCILLIAN MADE A BISHOP.  [CH. XvIL 


and two bishops, Instantius and Salvianus, became 
devoted followers of the ardent Priscillian. The 
orthodox prelates took alarm, and Adyginus, bishop 
of Cordova, took counsel with Idatius, bishop of Merida, 
as to the proper course to be pursued with regard to 
the new opinions. A synod was held at Saragossa 
(Caesar Augusta), and Priscillian, Helpidius, and the 
two bishops Instantius and Salvianus, were excom- 
municated. (a.p. 380.) The Catholics themselves were 
evidently disunited by this action. The most prominent 
opponents of Priscillian were Idatius and another bishop 
with almost the same name, Ithacius. 

Adyginus was considered to be too lenient towards 
the heretics, and his conduct was condemned at the 
synod. When we consider the growing strength of 
the ascetic spirit in the Church we can understand that 
the Catholics, even if they reprobated the heresy of 
Priscillian, had no small sympathy with the extreme 
severity of life practised by his followers. Ithacius, 
their bitterest opponent, was a man whose life did not 
‘commend itself to the orthodoxy of the age:} and it 
may be reasonably inferred that his zeal was aroused 
quite as much by the austerities of Priscillian as by his 
erroneous views.” 

ae The opposition to the movement only 

first condemns 1ncreased its strength, and Priscillian was 

Priscillian and advanced by his admirers to the bishopric | 

then reverses of Abila. Idatius and Ithacius asked for 

an imperial confirmation of the proceed- 

ings of the synod of Saragossa, which was given by 
Gratian in a.p. 381. The Priscillianists appealed to 
Rome, and their leader and a company of his followers, 
including several women, went by way of Gaul to the 
Imperial City. Euchrocia and her daughter Procula 
ministered of their substance to the heresiarch, just as 


1. Sulpicius Severus, Hzst. Sacr. 11.,¢. 50. ‘* 1 certainly hold that 
Ithacius had no worth or holiness about him. For he was a bold, 
loquacious, impudent, and extravagant man; excessively devoted to the 
pleasures of sensuality.” 

2. Dict. of Chr. Biog., art. ‘Priscillianus ’. “Hodgkin (Ztaly and 
her Invaders, vol. 1., p. 444) gives an account of the opinions of the er 
See also Sulpicius Severus, Hist. Sacr. 1., c. 46 foll. 


CH. XVII. ] PRISCILLIAN CONDEMNED. 4II 


Paula and her daughters were doing to St. Jerome. 
Neither at Rome nor at Milan did the enthusiasts find 
support. Repulsed alike by Pope Damasus and St. 
Ambrose, the Priscillianists turned, as their adversaries 
had done, to the secular power. Having no lack of 
money, they had no difficulty in winning the powerful 
support of Macedonius, the Magister Officiorum. At 
his instigation Gratian reversed his decision against 
the sect, and Instantius and Priscillian returned to Spain 
and obtained possession of their churches. Ithacius 
had to leave the province, and took refuge at the 
Imperial Court at Tréves. The money of. Priscillian 
had, however, secured the officials, and Ithacius failed 
to obtain their support. 
a But in 383 Gratian was murdered, and 
Maximus, in the following year Maximus came to 
Priscillian Tréves. The usurper acted with more 
vapor to vigour than his predecessor, whose weak- 
; ness is incidentally revealed by the fact 
that the matter of Priscillian had depended on the 
decision of venal officials. Maximus on his own account 
ordered a synod to assemble at Burdegala (Bordeaux). 
Instantius was deprived of his see; but Priscillian ap- 
pealed to the Emperor and the synod dare not disallow 
his appeal.t At this juncture St. Martin began to inter- 
vene. In one respect the bishop of Tours is the fore- 
runner of the high-minded prelates of the Middle Ages. 
Nothing would induce him to allow the superiority 
of any secular power to the clergy of the Church. It 
was extremely necessary for Maximus to win the 
support of the Saint, on whose recognition his imperial 
title seemed to depend. Maximus invited Martin to 
a banquet, but the bishop, by passing the cup from 
which he drank to a priest rather than to the Emperor, 
shewed his contempt for the civil as compared with 
the ecclesiastical authority. He went so far, however, 
as to intercede on behalf of Priscillian, and obtained a 
promise from Maximus that blood should not be shed. 
But Ithacius urged the policy of severity, and, after 
a trial before the praefect Evodius, Priscillian was con- 


1. Hefele, H7st. Cone., vol. 11., p. 384, Eng. Transl. 


A412 HORROR OF CHRISTIANS. [CH. XVII. 
demned to death. Maximus himself pronounced the 
sentence.’ Priscillian, Latronianus a poet, Euchrocia, 
two presbyters, and two deacons, were put to death. 
Instantius was banished to the Scilly Isles. 

It was resolved to extirpate the heresy by force; 
military tribunes were to be sent to Spain with full 
powers to examine those accused of Priscillianism and 
to deprive them of life and property. Maximus had 
inaugurated such a policy as would have befitted the 
fifteenth or sixteenth century. Perhaps it is fortunate 
that the first persecution on behalf of Christianity 
should have been due to a ruler of such doubtful 
character and legitimacy as Maximus; for what might 
in the case of a Constantine or a Theodosius have 
appeared as a proof of godly zeal, in the present instance 
was rightly regarded as an atrocious crime. 

Rien A Gallican bishop named Theognostes 

Indignation of thas the credit of being the first to protest 
y withdrawing from communion with 

the Spanish prelates. Soon, however, St. Martin ap- 
peared on the scene, horrified at the cruelty and duplicity 
of the whole proceedings. He was only induced to hold 
any communication with the Emperor in hopes of pro- 
curing pardon for some of the adherents of Gratian. 
He succeeded in dissuading Maximus from indulging 


in a general persecution in Spain, only on condition 


1. Dr. Hodgkin remarks, ‘* Already the punishment of death had 
been denounced against heretical leaders, at least as a threat.” Jtaly and 
her Invaders, vol. 1., ch. 6. The edict in the Theodosian code is directed 
against the Manichaeans, but involves the Encratites and other heretics ina 
similar sentence: Proditos crimine vel im mediocré vestigio facinoris hujus 
tnventos surnmo supplicio et inexpiabili poena jubemus affligi.” Inquisitors 
are ordered to be appointed. One of the charges brought against Priscillian 
was that of Manichaeism. St. Ambrose (Z. 26, ad /renaewm) condemns 
the action of the bishops. St. Augustine (ZZ. 134, to Apringius the Pro- 
consul) advocates the lenient treatment even of the African Circumcellions, 
and refuses to draw the mediaeval distinction between the secular and 
Spiritual arm in punishing heresy with death: ‘‘Cum enim tu facis, 
ecclesia facit, propter quam facis et cujus filius facis.” Eleven tractates 
by Priscillian have been discovered and are printed by Schepps in the 
Corpus Script. Eccl. Lat., vol. XVitl., together with the Canons by him 
prefixed to St. Paul’s Epistles. Priscillian is the earliest author to quote 
I John v. 7 (the three heavenly witnesses). See also Kiinstle, Avziz- 
priscilliana (1905). This author discusses whether the Athanasian Creed 
is not an anti-Priscillian work. 


_ CH. XVII.) REVERENCE FOR ROME, 413 


that the Saint would hold communion with the bishops 
who had sanctioned the death of Priscillian. For his 
compliance in this respect St. Martin believed that his 
power of working miracles was seriously diminished.! 
Pope Siricius, St, Ambrose, and St. Augustine, were 
agreed in condemning the death sentence pronounced 
on the Priscillianists., 

The whole affair throws a light on the deplorable 
condition of the Church of Gaul. The worldliness of 
the prelates, the readiness shewn on both sides to call 
in the civil power, the unscrupulous bribery of the court 
officials, the shameless appeal to a worldly tribunal to 
settle a matter of faith, and the indifference to shedding 
human blood, shocked the conscience of the most Chris- 
tian men of the fourth century. Alien, however, as 
were the proceedings to the spirit of the Christianity 
of the age, they were the logical outcome of a policy 
which all parties were agreed in furthering. The laws 
of Theodosius were only enforced by Idatius, Ithacius, 
and Maximus. 
| St. Martin died before the close of the fourth century. 
His feast, once so popular in England and still known as 
Martinmas, is celebrated on November 11. He is the 
forerunner of a new era; the wonder-working monastic 
saint of Western Europe. 

Ara We turn from St. Martin to one whose 
faults as well as his conspicuous virtues 
are eminently characteristic of the period; but before 
giving an account of St. Ambrose, it is desirable to say 
somewhat of the social system in which he moved before 
his elevation to the bishopric of Milan. 

Ambrose was connected with the great 
Roman aristocracy which played so promi- 
nent a part in Italy during the fourth 
century. The prestige of the city and its ancient 
families seems to have increased instead of diminished 
with the loss of political power. When Milan became 
the governmental head of Italy, Rome began to be 
regarded with veneration as the holy city of the Empire. 
The magnificence of the city impressed every visitor, and 


Prestige of 
Rome. 


1. Sulpicius Severus, Dzalog. 111. 13. 


414 AMMIANUS ON THE NOBLES. [CH. XVII. 


the poet Claudian thus describes the prospect from the 
palace of the Caesars in A.D. 403 :— 


The lofty palace towering to the sky 

Beholds below the courts of justice lie ; 

The num’rous temples round the ramparts strong, 
That to the immortal deities belong ; 

The Thund’rer’s domes ; suspended giant race 
Upon the summits of Tarpeian space ; 

The sculptured doors ; in air the banners spread ; 
The num’rous towers that hide in brass their head ; 
The columns girt with naval prows of brass ; 

The various buildings raised on terreous mass 5 
The works of nature joining human toils ; 

And arcs of triumph decked with splendid spoils ; 
The glare of metal strikes upon the sight, 

And sparkling gold o’erpowers the dazzling light.* 


The great nobles of Rome remained 

Romar bles, almost as wealthy as they had been in 
the days of the Republic and early Em- 

pire. Ammianus, the historian, gives a description of 
them in the middle of the fourth century. Their palaces 
were cities in miniature, each with its temple, hippo- 
drome, forum, and baths. When they travelled their 
retinues were worthy of Alexander the Great. They 
attended the public baths in their chariots in order to 
exhibit their power and affability. They assumed 
whimsical names like Reburrus and Tarrasius. They 
gave audience to strangers to impress them with their 
importance and grandeur.? Their wealth was such that 
it only can be appreciated by moder standards. Four 
thousand pounds of gold (£180,000) was the annual 
revenue of several of the great Roman families. Sym- 
machus, who was only moderately wealthy, spent two 
thousand pounds of gold (£90,000) in the celebration of 
his son’s praetorship. Nor were the Christian nobility 


1. De Vita Cons. Hon. v. 42, Hawkins’s Transl. Claudian, Zz ZZ. 
cons. Stilichonts, 130 ff. Boissier, La Fin du Paganisme, vol. U., p. 1603 
Gregorovius, Rome in the Middle Ages, bk. 1., ch. 2. Dr. Hodgkin (Jtaly 
and her Invaders, vol. 1.5 p. 560) remarks, ‘‘The heathenism of the 
Mediterranean countries was all concentrated in the city on the Tiber.’ 
Rome is called ‘‘ First among cities, te Lome of the gods (divum domus).” 

a. Ammianus Marcellinus, XIv. 6. 26; XVIII. 4. 29—32. 


CH. XVII.] ROMAN SOCIETY, 415 


less luxurious than their pagan brethren. Ammianus, 
the heathen soldier, describes exactly the same aristo- 
cracy as St. Jerome when he speaks of the devout ladies 
of Rome, and the dignified clergy. The clerical fop 
who drives such horses as the King of Thrace might 
envy, and visits the palaces of the matrons, and the 
noble lady, borne in her litter to St. Peter’s that she 
may distribute alms in public, are just the same as the 
patricians in Ammianus’ scathing description. The 
society was evidently wealthy, brilliant, and frivolous, 
but neither altogether illiterate nor uncultivated. In- 
deed, both in Christian and heathen Rome there were 
men and women not unworthy of being members of 
the great houses of a world-wide empire. 
The conservatism of the Roman nobility made it as 
a body naturally more favourable to the old than to 
the new religion, especially as their own credit was at 
stake. The priesthoods and offices connected with the 
temples were in some families hereditary, and the asso- 
ciations of many generations had endeared the ancient 
cults to the members of the great houses of Rome. 
During the reign of Gratian and 
Dias aye Theodosius the leaders of the heathen no- 
yimachus, and |... 
Probus. bility were Praetextatus and Symmachus, 
men of blameless lives and distinguished 
attainments, whilst the Christians had the support of 
the great Anician family, and of Probus, who was at 
the head of the Roman aristocracy. Under Valentinian, 
Probus had held the highest offices a subject could hold, 
and when praetorian praefect of Italy he appointed St. 
Ambrose governor of the provinces of Liguria and 
Aemilia. Ammianus, the historian, charges him with 
being incapable and oppressive in his administration, 
but the poets Claudian and Ausonius praise the liberal 
use he made of his fortune.1. Theodosius, when in Italy, 
gave proof of the political importance of the family 
of Probus by making his two sons Probinus and Olybrius 
consuls in the same year, A.D. 395. It is remarkable 


1. Ammianus Marcellinus, Xxx. §. 4—7. Claudian, Consulatus 
Olybriz et Probint, 42—44. Dr. Hodgkin (/taly and her Invaders, 
vol. I., p. 583) calls Probus ‘* That successful place-hunter, but most 
unsuccessful ruler.” 


416 AMBROSE OF MILAN. — [CH. XVII, 


that, despite their difference in religion, Symmachus and 
Probus were intimate friends, and social intercourse 
generally seems to have been little disturbed at Rome 
by questions of belief. This pleasing tolerance was 
characteristic of the closing days of the fourth century.} 
The struggle between the two faiths was waged 
over the rejection of the title of Pontifex Maximus by 
the Emperor, and the retention of the statue and altar 
of Victory in the Roman Senate-house. The great 
influence of St. Ambrose ensured the triumph of the 
Christians in both cases. 
This remarkable man was the son of 


Ambrose a Praefectus Galliarum, one of the highest 
made Bishop of : : 
rravaN officers in the Empire. He was educated 


in Rome, studied as a lawyer, and was 
appointed ‘consular’, or provincial governor of secondary 
rank, over Liguria and Aemilia, Milan being situated 
in the first-named district. Probus, who gave him the 
office, dismissed him with the words “‘Vade age non ut 
judex, sed ut Episcopus”. Evidently Ambrose obeyed 
this injunction; for when Auxentius the Arian bishop 
died, the people of Milan clamoured for Ambrose as his 
successor.? This in itself shews the growing influence of 
the Church. That the Milanese should desire a just and 
upright governor to be transformed into a bishop proves 
that they considered that he would be more use to 
them in an ecclesiastical than in a civil office. In fact, 
the bishop was the popular representative of the city 
or province against the oppressive or inefficient Roman 
government, and his power could be made far more 
effective than that of any imperial officer. Milan was 
the governmental head of Italy and the frequent home 
of the emperor, and an able bishop had almost unlimited 
power of influencing the rulers of the Roman world. 
Never was an office of such responsibility filled by a man 
more fitted to wield it for what he considered to be the 
good of others than was the see of Milan by Ambrose. 


1. Dill, Roman Society in the Last Century of the Western Empire, 
Book 11. (Sketches of Western Society). 

2. ‘*Raptus a tribunalibus ad sacerdotium,” says St. Ambrose of 
himself. De Offcits, 1. 4. The life of Ambrose was written by his 
secretary (zotarzus) Paulinus. 


CH. XVII.} PONTIFEX MAXIMUS. 417 


As a man well versed in civil business, 
and at the same time full of spiritual 
fervour, Ambrose was fortunate in having 
as emperors two youths who, if not particularly able, 
were thoroughly sincere and well-intentioned. Gratian 
(375—383), a young man of genuine piety, succeeded his 
father Valentinian at the age of sixteen. Two years 
later, when he was preparing to go to the assistance 
of his uncle Valens, the youthful emperor asked 
the bishop to write a treatise for him in support of 
orthodoxy; and in answer to this request, Ambrose 
composed his earliest work, De Fide. It was owing, 
doubtless, to the influence of Ambrose that Gratian 
refused to assume the title of Pontifex Maximus. When 
this was done is not quite certain. Ausonius, who 
had been the tutor of Gratian, was made Consul in 
A.D. 379, and addressed a panegyric to the Emperor on 
the occasion. The religion of this writer is a matter 
of dispute, but on the whole it seems probable that 
he wasa Christian. Yet he uses language which would 
hardly be possible had Gratian formally refused to be 
called Pontifex Maximus at this time. The title also is 
seen in inscriptions and coins of the period. Zosimus,} 
however, declares that Gratian refused the insignia of the 
office; and he probably did so when he left Tréves for 
Italy. It was a bold step to take. The Emperor had 
always been head of the state religion, and the title 
of Pontifex was not an empty one. To abdicate it was 
to surrender some of the imperial pretensions. But 
Gratian went further than this. He resolved to strike 
at the roots of Roman Paganism. 

In the Senate-house stood an altar 
and statue of Victory, placed there by the 
Great Caesar. The statue came from 
Tarentum and represented the figure of a winged 
maiden, surmounting the globe, with a laurel wreath 
in her hand. Constantius had removed the altar, but 
Julian had ordered it to be restored. The senators were 
accustomed to offer incense on it, and to touch it when 
taking oaths. In 381 Gratian suppressed these observ- 


Ambrose and 
Gratian. 


The Altar of 
Victory. 


I. Zosimus, Iv. 36. 


418 SYMMACHUS PLEADS, (CH. XVII. 


ances, and removed the altar, and perhaps the statue, 
from the Senate. Embassies were sent from Rome, 
headed by Symmachus, to implore the Emperors to 
restore the altar, but in vain.’ Gratian confiscated the 
revenues of the Temple of Victory and abolished the 
privileges belonging to the pontifis and vestals. The 
rebellion of Maximus gave the party of Symmachus 


fresh hopes, and on Gratian’s death it was resolved to ~ 


send a request to the child-Emperor Valentinian II., who 
with his mother Justina ruled Italy at Milan.2 Sym- 
machus addressed the Emperor in the name of Rome. 
“It appears to me,” says the illustrious Roman, “as if 
Rome herself stood before you and spoke in this wise— 
Most excellent Princes, Fathers of your country, respect, 
I beseech you, the years to which holy religion has 
allowed me to attain. Let me be permitted to follow 
the faith of my fathers, and you will not repent it. 
Let me enjoy the right of freedom and live in conformity 
with my customs and traditions. ‘This faith has placed 
the universe in subjection to my laws, these mysteries 
have repulsed Hannibal from my walls and the Senones 
from the Capitol. Have I achieved all this, only to be 
turned adrift in my old age? Preserve me, I implore 
you, from so humiliating a fate.” 

Ambrose answered the petition of 


5 Gib and Symmachus in language betraying the 


Pagan nye a intolerant spirit of the new Faith, 

which under imperial patronage was 
triumphing over the old. He warns Valentinian not 
to presume to act till he had authority from Theodosius 
to do so. He also sneers at the notion that the old 
religion needs money to support seven Vestals, when 
thousands of Christian women offer themselves freely 
to a life of virginity. When, after the fall of Maximus, 


1. An excellent summary of the arguments of Symmachus is given in 
Boissier, La Fin du Paganisme, vol. I., p. 317 ff. They are curiously like 
the modern defence of an established religion. Gregorovius (Rome in the 
Middle Ages, bk. 1., c. 2) refers to Gerhard, Der Streit um den Altar der 
Victoria, and to Beugnot, Chute du Paganisme, vill. 6. See also 
Gibbon, ch. xxviii. 

2. Gregorovius (of. ctt., bk. 1., c. 2, p. 67) says that it was Gratian 
who was addressed, but he was murdered on Aug. 25, 383. 

3. Ambrose, £/. XVIII. 


AY) i 


| 
‘ 
2 
: 


CH, XVI1.] THE PAGAN REVIVAL 419 


Theodosius visited Italy in 388, the appeals were 
renewed with no better success, the heathen party 
resolved upon making an effort for their dishonoured 
goddess. In 392 Valentinian II. was murdered by 
Arbogast, his Frankish general, and the rhetorician 
Eugenius was raised to the imperial office. Though 
a Christian himself, the new emperor supported the 
heathen faction and allowed the senator Nicomachus 
Flavianus to restore the ancient religion in the City. 
The altar of Victory was replaced: the old rites were 
again celebrated, and the property of the temples was 
restored, not to the priesthood but to Flavian himself. 
But this triumph was only short-lived. Theodosius 
gained the battle of the Frigidus and entered Italy. 
The temples were again closed and the priests banished. 
The official religion was suppressed as far as it was 
in the power of the government to do so. We are 
not told what happened to the altar of Victory; but 
her image still appeared on the coins of the Emperor. 
In the pillage of the temples, Serena, wife of the 
celebrated general Stilicho, robbed the statue of Rhea 
of a costly necklace; and the last of the Vestals, who 
witnessed the sacrilege, foretold that the family of the 
spoiler would perish for her crime. 
, Thus the old religion fell before 
Fell of Fagamem its young and powerful rival the 
Christian Church, and legislative acts 
which marked its downfall are to be found in the 
Theodosian code under the head of De Paganis Sacrificiis 
et Templis. 

Rapid as the fall of the state religion of the Romans 
appears to have been at the last, it had really been the 
work of centuries. Scepticism, nurtured in Greece, 
had found a congenial soil in Rome in the latter days 
of the Republic. Under Augustus a revival of the 
ancient faith, prudently fostered by that astute ruler, 
had taken place; and under the Empire society had 
restored its religious convictions by adopting new 
rites, Oriental in origin and mystic in character. The 
Neo-Platonists had given Hellenism renewed vigour ; 
and in the third century the practical infidelity of 
Epicureanism was reprobated by devout men of all 


DoD Z 


420 PAGANISM ABSORBED. [cH xvi, 


persuasions. But the attempt of Julian in the fourth 
century to give eclectic Hellenism a new lease of life 
shewed that its hold on mankind was too far relaxed to 
be restored. 

The surprising fact is that in Rome at the close 
of the fourth century there was a real revival of the 
old faith. Praetextatus, Symmachus, and Flavianus 
were thoroughly in earnest, and if the high-minded 
zeal of men of noble birth, cultured intellect, and blame- 
less lives, could have influenced the course of affairs 
Rome would have remained a Pagan city. But a 
Spanish emperor, backed by the public opinion of the 
East, and supported by men like St. Ambrose, was 
able to deal the ancient creed so severe a blow that 
it never recovered. It needed only the successive 
captures of Rome by Alaric and Gaiseric to complete 
its overthrow. 

Yet it cannot be denied that the 
aR ST OR Christianity which took the place of 
Christianity, the official cultus was not the pure faith 

of the Gospel; and that, if dogmatically 
it was the legitimate outcome of the teaching of the 
New Testament, it was often in practice a continuation 
of the ancient state of things under Christian forms. 
The life of St. Paulinus of Nola shews how gradual 
was the transition from faith to faith. This eminent 
man, the friend of St. Jerome and St. Augustine, 
established himself at Nola, where he erected a church 
in honour of the martyr Felix, for whom he felt a 
peculiar veneration. He spent his time in the exercise 
of devotion and asceticism, and in literary pursuits. 
His cult of St. Felix was in many ways similar 
to that of a local god. The poor were weaned 
from their paganism by being instructed to give their 
hereditary customs a Christian significance. The old 
paganism of Italy was but thinly veiled by the policy 
or superstition of the Christian Saint. And so it was 
in most places; disendowment and legislation had 
not killed the spirit of antiquity.’ 


1. Boissier, La Fin du Paganisme, bk. Iv., ch. ii. Bigg, Wayside 
Sketches tn Ecclesiastical History. 


CH. Xv1I.] INFLUENCE OF THE CLASSICS. 421 


ie Nor did the Christian faith gain in 
and Chenty, every respect by its victory. It was too 
Education. incomplete to allow the conquerors to 
take a generous estimate of the merits 
of the fallen foe. After nearly fifteen centuries of 
domination the Church has never been able to devise 
a system of education to supplant the old classical one. 
No books have ever been written to take the place 
of Homer and Virgil, of Thucydides and Livy, of Plato 
and Cicero, in the educational system ; and Christian 
zealots in declaring war against heathenism were in 
danger of including education in thei: defiance. For 
the first four centuries the good sense of the Church 
had prevented this: but the dream of St. Jerome ‘‘ Thou 
art not a Christian but a Ciceronian,” heralded a 
new state of things. Classicalism was too ingrained 
in that Father to permit him to degenerate into the 
state of ignorance into which his successors allowed 
themselves to sink, but he cannot be acquitted of 
giving an impulse in this direction. That the in- 
scription on the Cross of Christ was in Hebrew, Greek 
and Latin is not without a profound significance. 
Christianity, which sprang from a Hebrew source, has 
never been truly progressive save in company with 
the spirit of the two great races from which modern 
civilization has derived its inspiration. The attempt 
to dispense with the Classics in education was, as the 
story of the early middle ages shews, well-nigh fatal to 
Christianity itself. 
_ Prudentius with true prophetic insight 
Gea ate: foretold the rise of a new glory for 
Rome;! and shortly before his time a 
bishop of the Imperial City laid the foundation of 
that cultus, which made her the magnet which 
attracted all the piety of Western Christendom for 
many centuries. 


1. Contra Symmachum MX. 655 ff., esp. 660—664 : 


Nunc nunc justa meis reverentia competit annis. 
Nunc merito dicor venerabilis, et caput orbis, 
Cum galeam sub fronde oleae cristasque rubentes 
Concutio, viridi velans fera singula serto, 

Atque armata Deum sine crimine caedis adoro, 


A422 THE EMPRESS JUSTINA. (CH. XVIL 


Damasus, whose long pontificate lasted from a.p. 
366—384, made it a labour of love to restore the 
catacombs, which bands of pilgrims had already begun 
to visit. He removed the earth, widened the passages, 
and employed the artist Furius Dionysius Filocalus to 
engrave on marble slabs inscriptions to the honour of 
the martyrs, composed by the Pope himself. It was 
this pontiff who buiit the Font or Baptistery of St. 
Peter’s, and placed in it the Chair which ancient 
tradition said had been used by the great Apostle. 
Thus Damasus gave an impetus to the growing feeling 
that Rome was specially favoured by the presence of 
the relics of primitive Christianity, and under the 
protection of the most holy of. the martyrs. A time 
was not far distant when these, and not the monuments 
of imperial greatness, were destined to attract men back 
to the ruined and devastated city. 

But not only had the Church triumphed 

Anteenene of over Paganism; the time had come when 

Christianity. she was strong enough to shew to the world 

that she was prepared to tolerate no form 

of Christianity but that sanctioned by her authority; even 

though an emperor demanded its recognition. To this 

the history of the dispute between St. Ambrose and 
Justina fully testifies. 


Valentinian, who died in a.p. 375, had, as we have 


already seen, left two sons, Gratian and the infant 
Valentinian II., the latter the child of his second 
wife, the beautiful and wayward Justina. Gratian, 
with characteristic amiability, allowed his brother a 
share in the empire; and the child Valentinian and 
Justina were established at Milan. St. Ambrose, who 
had succeeded Auxentius in A.D. 374, was a strong 
supporter of the Creed of Nicaea, but Justina was 
attached to Arian views, which had been predominant 
in the city previous to the election of St. Ambrose. 
In 385 the Empress demanded that one of the churches 
in Milan should be given up for the use of the 
Arians. 


1. Gregorovius, History of Rome in the Middle Ages, bk. 1., ch. ii., 
SEC, 4. 


CH. XVII] . AMBROSE AND HIS FLOCK, 423 


, Strictly speaking, this was prohibited 
RoaiieoR by a law recently published by Theodosius ; 
pee Dee Asiana but an imperial command was not easily 
wit withstood, although Ambrose had rendered 
no small service to Justina two years before, at the 
critical moment when Maximus, having slain Gratian, 
threatened to invade Italy. The bishop, at the entreaty 
of the Empress, had crossed the Alps, and had persuaded 
Maximus to remain for the present content with the 
government of Gaul, Britain, and Spain.’ Still Justina 
had some show of right in demanding a church for the 
Arians. They were numerous in Milan, and the majority 
of the troops, being barbarians, were adherents of the 
sect. The chances of the Catholics in resisting a demand 
made by imperial authority and backed by the soldiery 
would have been small indeed, had it not been for the 
resolute spirit shewn by the great bishop of Milan, 
who, like Cyprian, had gained influence over his flock 
by repeatedly taking them into his confidence and 
explaining his policy. 

There were apparently two, or at most 
three, churches in Milan; one, the Portian 
Basilica, being outside the walls of the 
city.2. This Justina claimed either for the entire, or 
perhaps only partial, use of the Arians. Ambrose refused 
to yield, and the troops were sent to take possession of 
the church. The people stood by their bishop, where- 
upon Justina imprisoned some of the richer inhabitants 
for contumacy. A riot occurred, in which an Arian 
presbyter was seized by the mob and rescued by Ambrose, 
who besought the people not to stain the cause of the 
Church by acts of violence. The soldiers who were sent 
were withdrawn at the request made to their officers by 
the bishop. The affair threatened to become serious as 
endangering the authority of the Emperor, and pressure 
was put upon Ambrose to give ‘way; but Ambrose 


Resistance by 
Ambrose. 


1. St. Ambrose, #/. xx1v. Hodgkin, J/taly and her Invaders, 
vol. I., p. 412. 

2. There seem to have been two churches in Milan, the Portian and 
the New Basilica. The former was outside the walls: the latter had, 
apparently, not yet been consecrated. There are, however, other churches 
mentioned iu connexion with St. Ambrose, Fausta’s Basilica, the Roman, 
and that of St. Felix and St. Nabor. ; 


424 THE RELICS AT MILAN. [CH. XVII. 


declared that the Emperor had no rights over the churches 
—they belonged to God. Troops surrounded the Portian 
Basilica, but on Ambrose’s appearance they professed they 
had come not to molest him but to pray. As the people 
feared that Ambrose would be removed from Milan they 
guarded him in the basilica, and were taught by the 
bishop to occupy the time by antiphonal chanting of 
hymns, many of which he composed himself. A 
tradition, which however cannot be accepted, relates 
that the Te Deum was the joint work of St. Ambrose 
and St. Augustine at this time! For at Milan St. 
Augustine was sojourning during Ambrose’s period of 
trial, and it was the bishop’s eloquent exposition of 
Scripture that drew him irresistibly into the bosom of 
the Christian Church.2. The most celebrated hymns of 
St. Ambrose which St. Augustine especially admired are 
known from their opening words, Aeterne verum Conditor, 
Deus Creator omnium, Veni Redemptor Gentium, and O 
Lux beata Trinitas. 

An attempt was next made to induce Ambrose to 
dispute before the Emperor with an Arian bishop called 
Auxentius, which Ambrose, after due discussion with his 
presbyters, declined; and indeed a miracle was about 
to occur which would render all further discussion 
unnecessary. The long period of anxious vigil in the 
basilica had excited the feelings alike of the pastor - 
and his flock, and Ambrose’s prayer that he might 
dedicate a new church with suitable relics was soon 
to be answered. 

A presage, perhaps a vision, warned 
him to seek in the church consecrated to 
St. Felix and St. Nabor. Martyrs were 
scarce in Milan, and the increasing reverence with which 
their relics were regarded rendered a discovery especially 
opportune. As they opened the ground of the church 
at the spot indicated, two bodies were discovered, huge 
in size, such as antiquity alone produced (ut prisca 
aetas ferebat), with dissevered heads, and the tomb stained 


Discovery of 
Relics. 


1. This tradition has now been thoroughly discredited by Dr. 
A. E. Burn, who has recently discovered the author of the Ze Dewm to 
be Nicetas of Remesiana. 

2. St. Augustine, Confessions V1. 3, IX. 7- 


CH. XVIL] A TIMELY MIRACLE, 425 


with the martyrs’ blood. The enthusiasm at this 
fortunate discovery knew no bounds. Miracles occurred 
spontaneously. Devils were cast out; a blind man 
received his sight. The Arians tried to discredit the 
miracles, but in vain. The bones of the holy martyrs 
Gervasius and Protasius were borne in triumph to the 
basilica of Ambrose, now known in Milan as the church 
of San Ambrogio. 

We are in the age of miracles, but 
none present such difficulties as this. We 
have to remember that St. Ambrose was 
no ignorant enthusiast, no uneducated saint, but the 
leading man of his age. He was not only a bishop, 
but a cultured gentleman of the best type. His youth 
had been spent not in the cloister but in the business 
of the empire. He remained to the end of his days a 
statesman as well as a bishop. He was, moreover, a 
singularly high-minded man, distinguished as a ruler 
by wisdom and common sense. Yet here we find him 
profiting by a miracle which would prove a strain 
to the most credulous.? 

The story of the finding of the bodies of the 
martyrs may be read in a letter written by Ambrose 
himself to his sister Marcellina. Is it credible that the 
bishop could have believed men who perished not a 
century before under Diocletian to be giant remains of 
an ancient race? Yet Ambrose must either have been 
credulous beyond all measure, or else have played on 
the credulity of a people worked up to a pitch of un- 
reasoning fanaticism, and ready to believe anything. 
Either the understanding or the character of St. Ambrose 
must suffer in our estimation. Yet it is impossible: 
to understand his age without taking into account both 
possibilities, that of excessive credulity, and that of a 

1. St. Ambrose, Z%. xxul., also St, Augustine, Confess. 1x. 7 and De 
Civitate Dez, Xx11. 8. Gibbon says in a note to ch. xxvii., ‘* I should 
recommend this miracle to our divines, if it did not prove the worship of 
relics as well as the Nicene Creed.” Dr, Hodgkin thinks that, great as 
St. Ambrose was, he was not altogether exempt from the faults of his age, 
and that ‘‘In the strife with principalities and powers, in which he was 
engaged, his mind was so entirely engrossed with the nobility and holiness 
of his ends, that he may have been—I will not venture to say that he was 


—something less than scrupulous as to his means.” Hodgkin, J/aly and 
her Invaders, vol. 1., p. 440. 


Discussion of the 
miracle. 


426 THEODOSIUS VISITS ITALY. (CH. XVIL 


want of scruple when a laudable object was to be attained. 
In the last days of the Roman empire we find a childish 
readiness to accept the miraculous side by side with 
virile understanding, and unscrupulous acts combined 
with real exhibitions of Christian virtue. A historian 
like Socrates, who has all a lawyer’s capacity for 
discerning the shortcomings of the ecclesiastics of his 
age, finds no monastic story impossible to believe; and 
Synesius speaks with unfeigned rapture of the good- 
ness of Theophilus, who is chiefly known to us by the 
discreditable attempt he made to involve St. John 
Chrysostom in a charge of heresy. In a case like the 
finding of the relics of Gervasius and Protasius it is 
best to accept the story as an illustration of the spirit 
of the age. The old spirit of Paganism was strong 
in the populace of Milan, and was perhaps not altogether 
extinct in the breast of its saintly bishop. 
. The success of the discovery of the 
Rebel’ion of relics was undoubted. Arianism was 
beaten down, and Justina was powerless 
to resist Ambrose. Soon indeed the Empress had to 
entreat his assistance. Maximus in A.D. 387 prepared to . 
advance into Italy, and Ambrose again crossed the Alps 
to intercede for Valentinian. This time, however, he 
was unsuccessful. Maximus turned a deaf ear to the 
arguments of Ambrose, and prepared to invade the 
dominions of the boy emperor, who with his mother 
and sisters escaped to the court of Theodosius. The 
misfortunes of the family and the beauty of the 
Emperor’s sister Galla induced Theodosius to take the 
field in defence of the rights of Valentinian II., and to 
lead his forces against Maximus in person. Maximus 
was abandoned by his army, and the victorious emperor 
reinstated his young colleague in a.p. 389. It was now 
that Theodosius came face to face with St. Ambrose, the 
first real bishop, as he admitted, he had ever known. 
act i We have already seen how unflinching 
Theodosius,  W2S the attitude assumed by Ambrose on 
the question of restoring to the heathen 
party at Rome any of its lost privileges; and the 
same spirit was displayed in maintaining the dignity 
of the Church. Hitherto the triumphs of Ambrose had 


ees ee 


a a 


ae ee ee Mey 


ae ee 


CH. XvJI.] AMBROSE REBUKES THEODOSIUS. 427 


been over a woman and a boy; but he was now to shew 
the world that he could be equally firm in dealing 
with the great emperor who had restored peace to the 
shattered empire by subduing both the Gothic hordes 
who had gained the day at Adrianople and the usurper 
Maximus. ‘Theodosius at the height of his glory had 
to acknowledge the moral ascendancy of Ambrose. 

After his victory’ over Maximus, Theodosius was 
strongly urged by Ambrose to shew clemency to the 
fallen; and the Emperor’s disposition induced him to 
listen favourably to the bishop’s appeal. Unfortunately, 
however, a Christian prelate of this age, though always 
ready to use his eloquence in favour of political offenders, 
felt in honour bound to support the action of other 
bishops, even when it did not accord with the principles 
of justice. The bishop at Callinicum, an obscure town in 
the East, had not restrained a Christian mob led by 
fanatical monks from destroying a Jewish synagogue 
and a Gnostic church, The Jews, at any rate, were 
under the protection of the law of the empire, and no ruler 
could pass over such an outrage. Theodosius ordered 


the bishop to rebuild the synagogue, and the rioters to 


be punished. It was however considered unlawful under 
any circumstances for a Christian to contribute to the 
erection ofa building for false religion, a belief which had 
been the cause of many persecutions in the days of Julian. 
Monks also were regarded with superstitious reverence ; 
and it was deemed an outrage to punish acts inspired 
by zeal for God. Ambrose was not above the sentiments 
of his age, and though naturally just and a lover of 
order, his eyes were on this occasion blinded by pre- 
judice. Theodosius was present in the church, and 
the bishop of Milan directed his sermon to the Emperor, 
who seeing that he had been publicly attacked, enquired 
the cause, and Ambrose admitted that he had inten- 
tionally addressed his remarks to him. The bishop 
declared that he could not proceed to offer the sacrifice 
till the Emperor had rescinded his order. With this 
demand Theodosius at once complied.’ 


1. St. Ambrose, Zp. xL., to Theodosius; XL1., to hts sister, The 
arguments in favour of pardoning the bishop whose flock had burned the 


428 MASSACRE OF THESSALONICA.  [cH. Xvi1. 


The best-known story concerning Ambrose and 
Theodosius is one redounding highly to the credit of the 
former, as it shews him in the light of a bishop rebuking 
sin and a statesman hating acts of cruelty and violence 
perpetrated under pretext of justice. 

Though as a rule inclined to justice 
The Massacre of and humanity, Theodosius was liable 
to furious outbursts of rage in which he 
gave orders more befitting an oriental despot than the 
head of the Roman state. In a.p. 390 he was greatly 
provoked by the outrageous conduct of the people of 
Thessalonica. The commander of the imperial troops, 
who bore the Gothic name of Botheric, had put to 
death a popular charioteer, for a crime which has 
always been justly reprobated by the northern nations of 
Europe, but was regarded as almost trivial among a 
southern people, accustomed for generations to heathen 
immorality. The mob rose and murdered Botheric, and 
Theodosius gave orders for a general massacre of the 
guilty people. Seven thousand persons perished at the 
hands of the soldiery, and the whole circumstances of 
the butchery were exceptionally dreadful. 

There are two accounts of what ensued. Ambrose 
himself and his biographer Paulinus say that the Em- 
peror, after receiving a letter of rebuke, did public 
penance and grieved for his sin for the rest of his life. 
Theodoret relates how Theodosius, after keeping away 
from church for eight months, attempted to enter it on 
Christmas Day, but was met by Ambrose, who reproved 
him, and would not allow him to be present at the 
Eucharist till he had done penance and enacted a law 
that no criminal should be put to death till thirty days 
had elapsed after the sentence had been pronounced. No 
trace of such a law remains, and this latter version of 
the story is scarcely credible.} 


synagogue are extraordinary, Even if the bishop collected the mob and 
attacked the synagogue, he will be a martyr if he is punished for refusing 
to contribute to its reconstruction! The letter contains a true tribute to 
the natural clemency of the Emperor Theodosius. 

1. St. Ambrose, Zf. Lt. Theodoret, & #. v. 18, Of St. 
Ambrose’s Epistle, Gibbon (ch. xxvii.) says, “ His epistle is a miserable 


rhapsody on a noble subject. Ambrose could act better than he could 
write.’ 


——————— ee 


CH. XVII.} RIOT AT ANTIOCH. 429 


Phe Biases Three years earlier an event had oc- 
at Antioch, CUrred in the East illustrative both of 
the impetuosity and of the clemency of 
Theodosius. Antioch, the capital of the East, was the 
scene of a formidable riot. The demand for money for 
a donative to the soldiers had roused the populace to 
fury ; and in their rage they stormed the praetorium and 
proclaimed themselves the enemies of the Emperor by 
casting down his statues and those of his family. No 
insults were spared, the portraits of the Emperor and 
of his deceased wife Flacilla were defaced with mud 
and torn to shreds, and the statues dragged through the 
streets. When the people realised what had been done 
they were panic-stricken at the fate which probably 
awaited the guilty city. By the mad folly of the mob 
the inhabitants of the wealthiest and most populous 
city of the East were placed at the mercy of the 
Emperor. The outrage took place on February 26, 387; 
and Flavian, the bishop of Antioch, leaving the death- 
bed of his sister, hastened to Constantinople to implore 
the clemency of Theodosius. The entire season of Lent 
was consequently one of dreadful anticipation. At last 
the imperial commissioners arrived with the sentence of 
the Emperor. Considering the extreme gravity of the 
offence, it was unexpectedly lenient. The baths and 
theatres of the city were to be closed; the public distri- 
bution of corn was to cease; and the city was reduced 
from her proud position as the capital of the East to 
that of dependence on the neighbouring town of Laodicea. 
An enquiry was also held as to the circumstances of the 
riot, and many of the principal inhabitants were arrested 
and imprisoned; nor were they spared those tortures 
which then accompanied judicial examinations. The 
crime of the leading citizens was that of not having 
foreseen and prevented the riot. 
The terrified people betook themselves 
JohnChrysostom’s to the churches. The whole city became 
foeotaer a scene of prayer and supplication. From 
the mountains swarms of solitaries, in 
strange attire and of squalid appearance, came into 
Antioch to be welcomed as very angels of mercy. 
Secure of public reverence, and undismayed at the 


430 DEATH OF THEODOSIUS, [cH. xvi. 


authority of the commissioners, the monks boldly 
protested against ill-using men for the sake of stone 
images. Never did the power of the new religion 
manifest itself more brightly than at this dreadful time. 
But the eyes of all were fixed on one figure, that of the 
great preacher, John of the Golden-Mouth, the presbyter, 
known to us as St. John Chrysostom. Every day he 
spoke words of comfort and exhortation to the terrified 
people, reminding them that the present expectation 
of a worldly judgment was but a type of a more 
dreadful sentence awaiting sinners. Never were sermons 
preached under more dramatic circumstances, and with 
more effect, than the twenty-one discourses of Chrysostom 
‘on the Statues’. At last Flavian returned just before 
Easter with the glad tidings that Antioch was pardoned, 
and on Easter Day John preached the last of his series, 
describing the interview between the aged bishop and 
the Emperor. Many heathen were converted by the 
experiences of that fearful Lent, and Chrysostom had no 
light task in instructing those he had won from idolatry 
by his eloquence, in the principles of the true Faith. 
Theodosius was in Italy from 388— 
Serene Aer 391; but no sooner had he returned to the 
of Theolnings Hast, leaving Valentinian II. as Emperor 
in Italy. of the West, than the latter’s incapacity 
became manifest. Arbogast, a powerful 
_ Frankish general, supported by the heathen party in 
Rome, put the Emperor to death, and set up the 
rhetorician Eugenius in his place. Once more Theodosius 
had to visit Italy; and it was only after a severe 
engagement by the river Frigidus, in a.p. 394, that 
Arbogast was overthrown. Eugenius suffered the fate 
of all pretenders; and Theodosius and his infant son 
Honorius visited Rome in triumph. But the career of 
the Emperor was run. He died at Milan a.p. 395. 
Ambrose survived him two years, passing away in 
A.D. 397. Jews, heretics, and pagans joined with the 
Christians in mourning the loss of the great bishop. 
Theodosius and St. Ambrose represent the Chris- 
tianity of their age. Judged by almost any standard 
they were great men, yet it cannot be denied that they 
- both unintentionally left behind a heritage of evil. 


cH. xvi.] |= AN ORTHODOX EMPEROR. 431 


It was Theodosius who formulated a policy of intoler- 
ance, and St. Ambrose who set the example of sacerdotal 
arrogance. The edicts of the Emperor paved the way 
for the establishment of the Inquisition, whilst Ambrose’s 
example was really followed by those pontiffs who placed 
their foot on the necks of emperors. But it is not always 
just to judge individuals by the remote results of their 
lives. Ambrose and Theodosius were but typical of the 
spirit of their age. The fourth century was the parent 
of what we term mediaevalism. 

Theodosius was a true Spaniard, a 
born soldier, capable of great deeds, 
but needing the stimulus of necessity 
to arouse his energies. A certain indolence seems to 
have come over him when no crisis threatened, rendering 
him a negligent ruler save in times of emergency.! 
His religious disposition was that of his native 
country, easily impressed by sacerdotal pretensions, 
and perhaps inclined to fanaticism. Ambrose obtained 
his influence over Theodosius by insisting on the sacred 
dignity of his office, much in the same way as her 
confessor won the respect of Isabella the Catholic.” 
The cruelty of Theodosius was characteristically Spanish. 
By nature a clement and merciful sovereign, he was 
capable of giving ferocious commands and issuing severe 
edicts, especially against religious errors. For Theodosius, 
as we have seen, inaugurated a deliberate system of 
persecution, departing from the impartial attitude of 
Valentinian I. towards the religious opinions of his 
subjects. He undoubtedly possessed great qualities. 
During his reign the Roman empire maintained its 
place in the world, and the disintegration threatened 


Character 
of Theodosius. 


in the days of Valens was arrested for nearly twenty 


years. The rapid collapse which followed the death 
of Theodosius is a testimony to his administrative 
powers. His dynasty lasted longer than that of any 
of his predecessors, and his descendants ruled both in 


1. Hodgkin, /taly and her Invaders, vol. 1., p. 587. 

2. Prescott, Merdinand and Isabella, ch. vii. Fray Fernando de 
Talavera, when Queen Isabella made her confession to him, refused to 
kneel beside her as was the custom, saying that he was acting as God’s 
minister and should sit. Isabella, with her usual good sense, declared 
that he was the confessor she desired. 


432 A GREAT CHURCHMAN, ~ (CH. XVII. 


the Eastern and Western Empires. None of the men 
of the family inherited his abilities; but two of his 
female descendants, his daughter Galla Placidia and his 
granddaughter Pulcheria, were not altogether unworthy 
having sprung from Theodosius the Great. 
St. Ambrose was a great churchman 
of nacter in a period of transition. The Roman 
virtues which were disappearing in the 
State were transferring their energies to the Church. 
And Ambrose was a typical Roman. If Probus told 
him to govern his province as if he were a bishop, he 
ruled his diocese with the firmness of a secular governor 
of the best type. He might divest himself of this world’s 
offices and goods; but he remained at heart a Roman 
noble. It was to him that Justina looked when an embassy 
of the highest political importance, like that to Maximus, 
had to be undertaken. It is difficult to acquit Ambrose 
of shewing a political dexterity characteristic of an 
Italian priest in his contest with the Arians, especially 
in the matter of the discovery of the relics. He shared 
in the religious prejudices of his age, in the almost 
unreasoning admiration for a celibate life, which 
characterises all the great Fathers both Latin and 
Greek. He may not have been superior to the. cre- 
dulity of his time, he cannot certainly be acquitted of 
displaying in his acts a hierarchical spirit. Butin atime 
when the State was daily failing to preserve its citizens or — 
to influence their morals, it may be questioned whether 
what we term ‘priestly arrogance’ was not the neces- 
sary assertion of the claim of Christ’s religion on man’s 
allegiance. Like those of most men of action, the 
writings of Ambrose display more industry than 
originality; but his style is pure and his thought 
robust. His recorded acts and sayings reveal excellent 
common sense. The man who could sell the conse- 
crated plate of his church to redeem captives, who in 
a matter of religious custom ‘did at Rome as the 
Romans do’, and who told the minister of Valentinian, 
who threatened him, that he would die as a bishop 
whilst. the minister would act as a eunuch, must have 
had largeness of heart, breadth of mind, and calm 
courage. After making every allowance we may un- 


CH. Xvi] THE FOURTH CENTURY. 433 


hesitatingly pronounce St. Ambrose to have been a truly 
great man. ‘The force of character that could have so 
impressed Theodosius, and above all the eloquence and 
spiritual power which won St. Augustine to Christianity, 
are sufficient proofs of this. Ambrose is worthy to close 
the century which saw the work of Athanasius and the 
three Cappadocians. » 


For good and evil the fourth century 
Importance is most important to the Christian Church. 
e ee The incidents are so crowded and various 
that it is in itself an epitome of Church 
history. Its results are among the most permanent 
in the story of mankind. Hardly a feature of mediaeval 
life is not traceable to this age. A century which 
witnessed the triumph of the martyrs, the settlement 
of the creed of Christendom, the beginnings of mon- 
asticism, the discovery of the Holy Places at Jerusalem, 
the fall of Paganism, and the first establishment of the 
Papal power, can hardly be second in importance to any 
save to that in which the Founder of Christianity 
appeared on earth, 


EE 


CHAPTER XVIII. 


THE EASTERN CHURCH AND THE THIRD AND 
FOURTH GENERAL COUNCILS. 


WitH the death of Theodosius the 
Virtual partition Empire, if united in theory, became for 
Empire. all practical purposes divided into two 
separate and even rival monarchies, the 
Eastern and the Western. Arcadius, the elder son of 
the late emperor, ruled at Constantinople; his younger. 
brother, Honorius, at Rome, or rather at Ravenna. But 
neither emperor possessed sufficient character to be 
other than a tool in the hands of powerful court or 
military officials. That they were suffered to live is 
the greatest proof of their inability to reign, since it 
was easier for the politician whose star happened to 
be in the ascendant to rule in their name. The two 
courts, however, were distrustful of each other; and 
for the first time in Roman history it is convenient, 
if not strictly accurate, to speak of one part of the 
Empire as Eastern and of the other as Western. In the 
present chapter it is our purpose to confine our attention 
to the Eastern provinces. 

The reign of Anoatiiie was a reign of 
court favourites and barbarian military 
chieftains. Before, however, recounting their rise and 
fall it may be well to trace the career of the most 
original of the bishops of the period—Synesius of 
Cyrene. His transition from a Neo-Platonic philo- 
sopher to a Christian ruler is as characteristic of the 
age, as is the story of the calamities which his native 
province of Cyrene endured in his life-time. 


Synesius. 


CH. XVIII.] SYNESIUS BEFORE ARCADIUS. 435 


His connexion with Arcadius consists 
i Oration att in having delivered an address in the 
ingly Office. Presence of that emperor, the tone of 
which is so bold as to render it difficult 
to believe that any man could have dared to pronounce 
it before the ruler of half the Roman world. Synesius 
visited Constantinople in A.D. 397, and by the influence 
of Aurelian, the leader of the anti-German party in 
Constantinople,! he was allowed to pronounce an oration 
before the Emperor on the ‘ Kingly Office’. A king, he 
says, must be above all things pious. Next to this he 
must be a soldier, war being as much his trade as that 
of a shoemaker is making shoes. A king to know his 
business must live among men experienced in war. But 
the orator, speaking of Arcadius and his brother Honorius, 
says: ‘You see nothing, you hear nothing which can 
give you any practical wisdom. Your only pleasures are 
the most sensual pleasures of the body. Your life is 
the life of a sea-anemone.” The chief danger of the 
Roman state was the habitual employment of barbarians 
as soldiers in the place of free citizens of the empire; 
Synesius exhorts the Emperor to dismiss the Scythians, 
and to draw his troops from the inhabitants of his 
provinces who were engaged in agriculture. Then he 
goes on to speak of the duties of the king in peace, 
warning the Emperor against unworthy and venal fa- 
vourites, and exhorting him to the study of philosophy.* 
The whole speech is an attack on the system of the 
court and government of Arcadius, and we shall soon 
see how just the strictures of Synesius were. 
In this speech there is not the 
Synesius silent slightest allusion to Christianity, though 
about : . a tes 
Christianity, the duty of piety is earnestly insisted 
upon. The same silence is observable in 
all the pre-Christian writings of Synesius. His creed 


I. Synesius gives a description of the strife between Aurelian, under 
the name of Osiris, and his ‘brother’ Typhos, in the allegory entitled 
Concerning Providence or the Egyptians; see Bury, History of the Later 
Roman Empire, bk. 11., chap. ii. Miss Gardner, Syneszus of Cyrene, p. 42. 

2. Dict. Chr. Biog., vol. 1V., art. ‘Synesius’. This article, by the 
late Mr. T. R. Halcombe, extending over nearly fifty columns, is almost in 
itself a complete biography. Prof. Bury (oc. czt.) says the oration is the 
anti-German manifesto of the Roman party of Aurelian. 


EE2 


436 ECLECTICISM OF THE AGE. [cu. xvu. 


was at this time a sort of eclectic philosophy, yet in his 
hymn to God written on his return from Constantinople 
he speaks of praying in the “temples”’ there, by which 
he must mean the churches. Well has it been said 
of him, “The picture of a pagan philosopher praying 
in a Christian church to the saints and angels of 
Christianity, while investing them with the attributes 
of the daemons of Neo-Platonism, is no bad illustration 
of the almost unconscious manner in which the pagan 
world in becoming Christian was then paganizing 
Christianity. As thoroughly eclectic in religion as in 
philosophy, Synesius took from Christianity whatever 
harmonized with the rest of his creed, often varying 
the meaning of the tenets he borrowed to bring them 
into accordance with his philosophical ideas.” 
Interesting as the study of the philo- 
sophical views of Synesius is, an account 
of them scarcely belongs to Church 
history; but his description of his life in the rural 
districts of the province of Cyrene, where he lived on 
his estates, is too illustrative of the age to be passed 
over in silence. The people, he remarks, though com- 
pletely ignorant of public affairs, all seem to have 
known the stories in the Odyssey. ‘‘ The good herdsmen 
speak of Ulysses as a bald-headed man, but clever in 
finding his way out of difficulties. They roar with — 
laughter when they talk of him, as if it was but last 
year that he blinded the Cyclops.” They seem not to 
have had any idea who was the ruling emperor; they 
only knew that the tax-gatherer came annually. None 
of them had seen the sea, and they could not believe 
that fish taken from it could be good for food.2» Among 
these simple folk Synesius lived, hunting, farming, and 
composing his treatises and letters to friends. 
ea tS But like all the provinces, Cyrene, at 
invade Cyrene. the beginning of the fifth century, was 
being overrun by marauding barbarians. 
The governors were incredibly weak and corrupt. 


The province of 
Cyrene. 


1. Dict. Chr. Biog., art. ‘Synesius’, vol. tv., p. 7726. Miss Gardner, 
Synesius of Cyrene, pp. 46, 71 ff. 

2. In a letter to his brother Evoptius, Dzct. Chr. Bzog., art. 
* Synesius’, vol. 1v., p. 760. Miss Gardner, Synesius of Cyrene, p. 49 f. 


CH. XVIII] “PROVINCIAL ANARCHY, 437 


Cerealis, whom Synesius found on his return from 
Constantinople, was only a type of the official of the 
age. The troops were under no discipline. The native 
soldiers were allowed to go where they could get main- 
tenance, whilst the foreign mercenaries oppressed the 
towns till they were bribed to quit them. The people 
would have fought, but the government would not arm 
them. Even when Synesius raised and equipped irregular 
troops to repel the barbarians with some success, he 
exposed himself to a charge of treason. The clergy 
armed their flocks; and Synesius relates how on one 
occasion after a church service they made an attack on 
the barbarians at the instigation of the valiant Faustus, 
a deacon, who, though himself unharmed, slew several 
men with his own hand. After the recall of Cerealis, 
a more vigorous administration soon cleared the country 
of barbarians; but the government was too corrupt 
to continue a salutary policy long, and in opposition 
to law and custom a native of the province, named 
Andronicus, was made governor. Andronicus was a 
man of low origin, who was believed to have obtained 
his office by bribery. Great indignation was felt at 
the appointment, and Synesius in the name of the 
inhabitants of Cyrene protested in a letter to a friend 
at Constantinople. 
Since the introduction of the Christian 
aaa eas faith the people of an oppressed province 
A.D. 409. had one resource. They could not prevent 
the Emperor appointing whom he would 
over them, but they could choose for themselves a pro- 
tector in the person of a bishop. The independence of 
the clergy and their resolute assertion of their position 
was due to no selfish desire for class privileges. The 
Christian bishop had become the people’s Tribune, the 
spokesman of a city or province in the face of an 
oppressive ruler. 
To defend them from Andronicus, the inhabitants 
of Ptolemais, the capital of Cyrene, chose Synesius as 


1. Cyrene received as governor ‘fa man from the tunny fisheries”, 
Andronicus by name, an extortionate, rapacious and vicious man. Glover, 
Life and Letters in the Fourth Century, p. 357. 


438 SCRUPLES OF SYNESIUS. (CH. XVIII 


their bishop. He remonstrated vigorously at their 
selection ; but left the case in the hands of Theophilus, 
bishop of Alexandria, whom he regarded with the 
highest reverence. He feared that he would be un- 
acceptable because his views on the Resurrection were 
not such as the multitude held, and nothing would 
induce him to surrender what he believed to be truth ; 
for to Synesius “to be almost or altogether truthful 
is to be almost or altogether divine’. He also 
declined to put away his wife, or to live without 
further hope of children.2 Theophilus, though he had 
but little genuine sympathy with the Origenistic 
views of Synesius, overcame his scruples and induced 
him to accept the bishopric. This was in A.D. 410; 
and when the new bishop returned to Ptolemais 
he found Andronicus had justified the apprehension of 
the provincials by acting as a ruthless tyrant. The 
prisons were full, and the torturers kept in constant 
requisition. At first Synesius remonstrated ; but finding 
his words had no effect, he proceeded to excommunicate 
the governor. The mere threat of such a proceeding, 
even at this early date, had begun to be too terrible 
to be resisted; and before the letter of the church of 
Ptolemais had been sent to the other churches, Andron- 
icus professed penitence. For a time the sentence 
was withheld; but when Andronicus relapsed into his 


former cruelty it was promulgated. Soon afterwards the 


governor was deprived of his office. Synesius, however, 
lived to see even worse times, as the barbarians poured 
once more into the defenceless province. His children 
died; and there was nothing but desolation and misery 


1. Dict. Chr. Biog., art. §Synesius’, vol. IV., p. 775a, 

2. Synesius thus states his position. ‘‘Iam married. God and the 
law and the sacred hand of Theophilus gave me my wife, and I do not 
wish to part from her at all. Further, philosophy is opposed to many 
current dogmata. (a) I do not think the soul is made after the body, 
(6) nor that the world and all its parts will be destroyed. (c) The Resur- 
rection as preached I count as sacred mystery, and am far from accepting 
the general idea. (a) To conceal the truth is philosophically sound,... but 
I cannot obscure these opinions now.... I shall be sorry to give up sports. 
(My poor dogs!) But I will: and I will endure business, as a means of 
doing service to God. But my mind and my tongue must not be at 
variance.” See Glover, of cét., p. 350. Miss Gardner, Synestus of 


Cyrene, pp. 91 ff. 


‘ 
Bea! at. ‘ 
oS a be, _— 


CH. xvi.) INTRIGUES AT CONSTANTINOPLE. 439 


on all sides. The bishop retained his love of philosophy 
to the end, his last letter being addressed to the famous 
Neo-Platonist Hypatia, herself now of mature years,) 
and destined to perish miserably. His last poem was 
a hymn to Christ. Thus Synesius truly represents his 
age; an impossible character in any other century, he 
stands at the parting of the ways. 
; If the life of Synesius shews the de- 
Beige Ww plorable condition of the provinces of the 
A.D. 395—408. Eastern Empire, the rule of Arcadius illus- 
trates the condition of Constantinople. 
This emperor reigned from a.p. 395—408, during which 
period he passed from the influence of one favourite to 
that of another. The first was Rufinus, the instigator 
of Theodosius in the infamous massacre of Thessalonica 
(A.D. 390).2 He was an opponent of Stilicho, the 
powerful general of Honorius; but his influence over 
Arcadius was interrupted by the return of the army 
of Theodosius from Italy, when Gainas the Goth, 
a supporter of the military faction, put him to death. 
The eunuch Eutropius managed to occupy the place 
of the fallen favourite till a.p. 399, when, owing to the 
accusations of Gainas and of the Empress Eudoxia, he 
was first disgraced and banished, and afterwards, on 
further charges of treason being made against him, 
was recalled from his place of exile and put to death. 
After the fall of Eutropius, Gainas attempted to make 
himself master of Constantinople; but he was driven out 
of the city, and finally defeated and slain in January, 
401. In the following year we find Alaric, the Gothic 
general, invading Italy at the instigation of the court 
of Arcadius: but he was defeated by Stilicho at the 
battle of Pollentia (a.p. 403).8 Disorder, incapacity and 
treachery are the unenviable characteristics of the first 


1. Dict. Chr. Biog., art. ‘Synesius’, vol. tv., p. 7804. In his early 
days Synesius had been her pupil at Alexandria. See also Kingsley’s 
Hypatia. In this romance the author has, perhaps necessarily, represented 
his heroine as young and beautiful. 

2. Theodoret, H. #. v.18. Ambrose, Z/. LIItI. 

Claudian, De Bello Getico, 555 ff. An oracle told Alaric, 
penetrabis ad Urbem; he reached a river named ‘ Urbis’, near Pollentia. 
But before ten years had elapsed the oracle had been fulfilled! Hodgkin, 


Italy and her Invaders, vol. 1., p- 719. 


440 EARLY DAYS OF CHRYSOSTOM.  [cu. xviit. 


years of the reign of Arcadius ; and these help to explain 
the cruel persecution of St. John Chrysostom, whom 
the eunuch Eutropius had brought to the capital as its 
bishop. | 
We have met with this celebrated 
Christian preacher at Antioch in a.p. 387, 
during the days following the destruction 
of the imperial statues. He was born about a.D. 347, 
the son of an “illustrious” general called Secundus and 
Anthusa.' His father died when John was still a child, 
and his mother refused all offers of marriage that she 
might educate her son and administer his property. 
Like many other famous men of his time, the 
emperor Julian and St. Basil for example, John was a 
pupil of Libanius, the celebrated Sophist, who, according 
to Sozomen, declared on his death-bed (a.p. 395) that 
of all his disciples John was most worthy to succeed 
him, “if the Christians had not stolen him from us.”? 
John began by practising as an advocate; but the 
example of his friend Basil (not St. Basil of Caesarea) 
led him to withdraw from worldly pursuits, and he was 
baptized by Meletius when about twenty-four years of 
age. Owing to the entreaties of his mother, John did 
not forsake his home to practise austerities with his 
friends, Basil, Theodore (afterwards bishop of Mopsuestia) 
and Diodore (bishop of Tarsus); but he began to lead 
a strictly ascetic life in his own house.? In a.p. 374, 
however, his life was endangered by a strange accident, 
and he resolved to embrace monastic practices. 
At the time when the laws against 
Parysostom'§ magic (owing to the suspicions of the 
emperor Valens) were most zealously 
enforced, Chrysostom and a friend were walking near 
Antioch by the Orontes. Seeing a book floating on the 
water he picked it up and began to examine its contents. 
To his horror it was a work on magic, and a soldier was 
observed to be approaching. Detection meant death; 
and there was nothing for it but to throw away the 
volume into the river. Happily the soldier did not 
see what the friends had done, and they were saved. 


1. Sozomen, #. £. VIII. 2. 
2. Chrysostom, De Sacerdotio, 1., C. 5. 


St. John 
Chrysostom. 


CH. XvIIL] JEALOUSY OF THEOPHILUS. 441 


But the incident made a profound impression on 
John’s mind! He abandoned himself to solitude and 
severe ascetic discipline for six years. When failing 
health compelled him to return to Antioch, he was 
ordained deacon by Meletius, and priest by Flavian. 
For sixteen years, A.D. 381—397, he was the great 
preacher of the church of his native city. 

Chrysostom On the death of Nectarius in a.p. 397 

Bishop of | Eutropius resolved to make Chrysostom 
Constantinople. bishop of the Imperial city. There were 
two obstacles to his plan. The people of Antioch 
were as determined to retain their great orator as he 
was unwilling to leave them; and ‘Theophilus, bishop 
of Alexandria, who was apparently at Constantinople at 
this time, had a candidate of his own, a certain Isidore, 
whose election, owing to his being privy to some com- 
promising transactions, it was his interest to promote. 
But Eutropius was not easily foiled. John was decoyed 
outside Antioch, placed in a public conveyance and 
hurried away as a prisonerto the capital. Theophilus 
had to submit to necessity; and on February 26, a.p. 398, 
he consecrated John bishop of Constantinople. But a 
bishop of Alexandria was not to be thwarted with 
impunity, and Chrysostom had now for his enemy the 
most powerful prelate in the Eastern world. The new 
Patriarch presented a strange contrast to the people 
around him. He was a small delicate man, wasted in 
body by asceticism, with a lofty forehead furrowed with 
wrinkles, pale cheeks, and limbs so long in proportion 


1. Hom. in Act, Apost. 38, in fine. Dean Stephens, Lzfe of Chry- 
Sostom, Pp. 57. 

2. Socrates, VI. 2. Soz., vit. 2. Isidore had been onea very delicate 
mission to Rome on behalf of Theophilus. He had congratulatory letters 
to both Theodosius and Maximus, with instructions to present the one 
addressed to the victor. He gave Theodosius the letter addressed to him, 
and told Theophilus that he had ‘lost’ the one written to Maximus. 
Chrysostom was duly elected by the clergy and people of Constantinople. 

. Sozomen, H. #. vit. 2. Socrates, vi. 2. The chief authority 
for the life of St. John Chrysostom is a Dialogue between a bishop and 
a deacon, by Palladius. It is a strongly partisan work composed by an 
adherent of Chrysostom in exile at Rome for his opinions. Whether 
this Palladius is also the author of the Lausiac History of Egyptian 
Monasticism is uncertain, See Dzct, Chr. Biog., and, The Lausiac 
History of Palladius by Dom Butler (Zexts and Studies), p. 175. 


442 ELOQUENCE OF CHRYSOSTOM. [cH. xvi. 


to his body that he compares himself to “a spider”. 
He was an indefatigable student, cared little for society, 
and his weak digestion and ascetic habits forbade his 
indulging in any approach to conviviality.2 Simple in 
his habits, and hating display, Chrysostom was not 
disposed to associate with the great officials of the 
empire with whom his position brought him in contact. 
He habitually withdrew from intercourse with the world, 
and perhaps displayed excessive petulance in his dealings 
with those outside his own circle. The luxurious clergy 
of the city felt the simple life of the new bishop a 
reproach to themselves, and hated him accordingly.® 
But at first his superb eloquence 
carried all before it. Eudoxia was his 
most ardent disciple. At the translation 
of some relics, she took part in the procession clad in 
her royal purple.‘ The simple-minded bishop was 
delighted with such piety and condescension on the 
part of the Empress. But Chrysostom was not content 
to bask in the sunshine either of imperial or of popular 
favour. Constantinople was full of Goths attached to 
the army, and the bishop determined that these should 
not be without Christian privileges. A church was set 
apart for them, and services. conducted in the Gothic 
tongue.’ Chrysostom preached to them himself, through 
an interpreter, and sent missionaries to convert their 
heathen brethren who still lived the life of nomads by 
the Danube. His zeal for missions was conspicuous; 


Chrysostom’s 
success. 


1. Sozomen, viil. 2. Socr., vi. 3. In personal appearance Chry- 
sostom, as described by contemporary writers, though dignified was not 
imposing. His stature was diminutive (cwuartov), his limbs long, and he 
was so much emaciated by early austerities and habitual self-denial that he 
compares himself to a spider (dpaxvddns), Zp. 1v., § 4). Dict. Chr. Biog., 
vol I., p. 5310. 

2. Socrates, VI. 4. Palladius, pp. ror-102. 

3. Socrates, Vi. 4. Sozomen (VIII. 7) says: 8re undert cvvjcbcrev ovd5e 
ér’ éoriaciw Kadovpevos barjxove—his early asceticism having made him 
subject to headaches and disorders of the stomach. 

4. Sozomen, vill. 8. Socr. v1. 8. Socrates says that the effect was 
not altogether good, as riots took place between the Arians and Orthodox. 

5. Theodoret, v.30. adrés re yap 7a mrelora éxeice Hoirav diehéyeTo 
Epunvevty xpwmevos TP éxarépay yOccav émiorapévy tivl Kal Tovs héyew 
émtorauévous robro mapeckevate Spav. Hodgkin, /taly and her Invaders, 
vol. I., p. 697. Theodoret, H. #. v. 30, 31. Stephens, of. cz#., p. 238. 


CH. xvi.] © CHRYSOSTOM UNPOPULAR. 443 


for he encouraged Leontius, bishop of Ancyra, to unite 
with him in the task of converting the Goths; and even 
during his exile he shewed his anxiety for the work he 
had inaugurated. He was assisted by the noble ladies 
of Constantinople in the demolition of the idol temples 
in Phoenicia, large funds being required for workmen 
to complete the destruction of these massive structures. 
Chrysostom had also the courage to oppose the powerful 
Gothic chieftain Gainas, who demanded the use of a 
place of worship for the Arians, a request seconded 
by the timid Arcadius.* 

But all the time John was raising up 
for himself powerful enemies. The clergy 
were corrupt, luxurious, and sensual. Few 
of the priests of Constantinople were free from the vices 
of a great city, many of them being guilty of serious 
offences against moral purity. The practice of introducing 
spiritual sisters into their houses gave rise to no small 
scandal: some clergy had even resorted to crimes of 
violence? John had no compunction in waging war 
against this clerical immorality: some were deposed, 
others excommunicated, by him. The chief odium fell 
on the archdeacon Serapion, who had great influence 
over the bishop, and is reported to have told him in 
an assembly of the clergy, “ You will never be able, 
Bishop, to master these mutinous priests unless you 
drive them before you with a single rod.’* ‘The 
position of bishop of Constantinople was, moreover, 
an exceedingly difficult one. The Second General 
Council, in giving the see the precedency of all Churches 
save that of Rome, had assigned to it no jurisdiction 
over other bishops; and the second prelate in the em- 
pire was placed in the anomalous position of being 
ecclesiastically a suffragan of the bishop of Heraclea, 
as Exarch of Thrace.‘ Chrysostom consequently made 
many enemies by acting as if he had authority over 


Causes of his 
unpopularity. 


1. Sozomen, Vil. 4. Theodoret, v. 32. 

2. Chrysostom’s treatise Contra eos gut subintroductas habent. 
Stephens, of. cz#., p. 220. 

3. Socrates, VI. 4. 

4. Council Const., Cazon 3. Metropolitan authority over Thrace and 
Pontus was given to Constantinople by the Council of Chalcedon, Canon 
28. Bingham, Axizg., 1X., c& 4, sec. 2. 


444 LUXURY DENOUNCED. | [CH. XVIII. 


the bishops of Asia Minor, and by deposing several — 
of them during a visitation he made in the winter of 
401. While Chrysostom was away from Constantinople, 
he left his affairs in the hands of Severian, bishop of 
Gabala, who used the opportunity to form a party 
against. him in his absence. 

The great ladies of Considatina ta 
were soon destined to be offended by 
the candour of the bishop; for Chry- 
sostom was no popular orator, but a stern preacher 
of righteousness. He had no sympathy with luxury, 
and very little with wealth. He regarded useless 
profusion as an insult to poverty, and he once declared 
publicly, on the occasion of an earthquake, that “the 
vices of the rich had caused it, and the prayers of the 
poor had averted its worst consequences.” But Chry- 
sostom did not confine himself to generalities. He 
attacked the fashionable vices of the age. His un- 
sparing eloquence lashed alike the men who insisted 
on having boot-laces of silk,! and the ladies who re- 
paired their faded charms with rouge and white lead. 
The gluttony of the rich filled him with disgust, nor 
had he any mercy on the extravagant employment of 
gold and silver for personal adornment and for almost 
every vessel used in the houses of the opulent. He 
advocated liberality to the poor, dwelling perhaps — 
too little on the duty of giving with discretion. Three 
gay widows, the friends of Eudoxia, were specially 
incensed against the preacher. Marsa, Castricia and 
Eugraphia (the latter being not inaptly named since 
she used rouge and cosmetics to increase her beauty) 
were the leaders of society, and could not fail to be 
offended by the bold language of the bishop. Eudoxia 
espoused the side of her friends and became the enemy 
of Chrysostom.? 


Chrysostom 
and the rich. 


The waning popularity of the Arch- 

of Thoughts bishop gave his bitter and watchful 
enemy, Theophilus, an opportunity of 

which he was not slow to avail himself; and a pretext 


1. Jn Matt., Hom. xlix., quoted by Stephens, p. 227. 
2. Stephens, p. 383. Palladius, Dza/og., p. 74. 


CH. XVIII} THE MONKS AND THEOPHILUS. 445 


for interfering with the Church of Constantinople soon 
presented itself. 

Origen’s teaching had commanded 
the admiration of most of the great 
divines of the fourth century. The boldness and 
originality of the master’s thoughts had not deterred 
Christian doctors trained in the universities of the 
Empire from the study of his works. Basil and the 
two Gregorys had openly expressed their admiration 
for his genius, and almost every theologian of note 
at the close of the century was an Origenist.! But 
the temper of the fifth century was not so liberal, 
owing to the rising influence of the uneducated monks. 
Already the antagonism between Christianity and 
culture, both of which Origen represented, began to 
be manifested. Theophilus, the friend and spiritual 
adviser of Synesius, was not exempt from the fascination 
which Origen had exercised over all educated men; nor 
was St. Jerome, the greatest scholar of the Western 
Church, at this time in learned retirement at Bethlehem. 
But the majority of the monks heard with horror that 
God must not be thought of as possessing anything 
like a human form, regarding as blasphemous all 
attempts to explain away such passages of Scripture as 
alluded to the hands or eyes of God. Origen’s dread 
of anthropomorphism caused him to be looked upon by 
the monks as the chief teacher of heresy, whilst the 
speculations hazarded in his De Principiis led many 
others to distrust his system.? As a consequence the 
Origenistic controversy soon began to convulse the 
East. St. Jerome, forgetting his previous admiration 
of Origen, plunged into the thick of the fray as the 
opponent of his doctrines in Palestine; and his un- 
dignified abuse of his former friend Rufinus testifies 


The Origenists. 


1. Especially the Cappadocians, Basil and the two Gregorys. 
Harnack, A7zst. of Dogma, vol. Iv., pp. 84 ff. 

2. Epiphanius includes Origen among the heretics, and charges him 
with (a) allegorising the accounts of Creation and Paradise ; (6) denying the 
resurrection of the natural body; (c) teaching that the Son was created, and 
that He does not see the Father; (@) teaching that Christ’s kingdom will 
have an end ; (¢) affirming that the devil will repent and be restored to his 
former glory, and be made equal with Christ. Dzct. Chr. Biog., art. 
‘ Origenistic Controversies’, vol. IV., p. 146a. 


446 ORIGENISM DENOUNCED. (CH. XVIII. ° 


to the intense bitterness of feeling engendered by the 
dispute.} 

The anti-Origenists secured the sup- 
port of one bishop whose reputation for 
learning and sanctity assisted their cause, whilst his 
prejudices and ignorance of the world made him the 
tool of unscrupulous intriguers. St. Epiphanius, bishop 
of Constantia and metropolitan of Cyprus, author of 
the Ancoratus, and of that monument of erudition, 
the Panarion, a description of all the heresies up to 
his day, fanned the flame of discord in Palestine, and 
became the agent of Theophilus in his contest with 
Chrysostom. 


Epiphanius. 


The zeal of the monks of Egypt 
against Origen had alarmed Theophilus. 
To them a God without human attri- 
butes was inconceivable, and the words of Serapion, 
one of the most aged and respected among them, when 
he heard of such an idea, “‘ They have taken away my 
God, and I know not what to worship,” expressed the 
sentiments of many.? —The monks, formidable for their 
reputation for sanctity and their number, over-awed 
Theophilus, and at last he consented to anathematize 
the writings of Origen. 

ee But the monks of Egypt were not 

Brothers,  @ll of them ignorant fanatics. The 

Nitrian desert in the neighbourhood of 

Alexandria was full of admirers of Origen, among 
whom were four aged brethren, Dioscorus, Ammonius, 
Eusebius and Euthymius. They were popularly known, 
from their lofty stature, as the ‘Tall Brothers’, and 
had enjoyed the friendship of Theophilus. Dioscorus 
had actually been raised to the episcopate, and com- 
pelled, much against his will, to accept the see of 
Hermopolis: Eusebius and Euthymius were presbyters 
of Alexandria. In the persecution which Theophilus 
did not scruple to raise against the Origenists in q 
the Nitrian desert, the four ‘Tall Brothers’ suffered ; 
severely ; and finally they and other monks took refuge | 


The Monks and 
Origenism. 


1. Vide infra, Chap. XIX. 
2. Socrates, vi. 7. Sozomen, VIII. 11, 12. 


CH. XvilI.] INTRIGUES OF THEOPHILUS. 447 


in Constantinople,’ where they were received with kind- 
ness by Chrysostom, who, however, was careful to do 
nothing to weaken the authority of Theophilus. As 
men excommunicated by their own metropolitan, he re- 
fused to admit them to the Eucharist at Constantinople ; 
though he had but little doubt that, when he had ex- 
plained matters to the bishop of Alexandria, the ban 
would be removed. ; 
7 He little knew Theophilus. The pope 
ec ey ™ of Alexandria was not the man to iste the 
Epiphanius chance of humbling the upstart see of the 
Gis eatoni New Rome. In bygone days Theophilus 
had been opposed to Epiphanius on the 
Origenistic question; but a bishop of such learning, 
piety, and simplicity of mind was too useful a tool to 
be cast aside. Theophilus wrote a courteous letter to 
Epiphanius, explaining how convinced he was that 
Origenism was a danger to the Church. The vain 
old man was flattered at the idea of having won over 
Theophilus to his own opinion; so, after holding a 
council in Cyprus to condemn the doctrines of Origen, 
he started for Constantinople, and, on his arrival, treated 
the Patriarch as though he were already an excom- 
municated person.? 

Though Chrysostom belonged to the school of 
Antioch, which under his friends Diodore and Theodore 
favoured the study of Origen, he was not a pronounced 
Origenist. His aims were practical rather than theo- 
logical, and the controversy does not appear to have 
interested him greatly. Directly the four brothers 
appealed to the Emperor for protection against the 
pope of Alexandria, they lost Chrysostom’s support. 
But nothing mollified Theophilus, whose sole object 
was to ensure the ruin of his rival. Assisted by St. 


1. Socrates, vi. 9. Palladius, pp. 51—62. In the Laustac History 
of Palladius, the ‘Tall Brethren’, especially Ammonius, are mentioned 
with the greatest respect. Of Origenism, Dom Butler rightly remarks, 
‘‘Tt appears to have been a question of ecclesiastical politics quite as much 
as of doctrine.”” Lausiac History (No. 1), p. 174. 

2. Socrates, vI. 12. Sozomen, VIII. 14. Epiphanius was rebuked by 
the Gothic bishop Theotimus. Sozomen, VIII. 14 and 26, 


3. Stephens, of. cz¢., p. 300, on the authority of Palladius. 


448 CHRYSOSTOM ACCUSED.  [cH. xvulL 


Epiphanius, and applauded by St. Jerome, he continued 
his campaign against St. John Chrysostom? 

Before he left Constantinople, however, Epiphanius 
found out how thoroughly he had been misled. If he 
was not reconciled to Chrysostom, he at least had 
learned that ecclesiastical politics in the capital could 
not be touched with clean hands.” 

Theophilus arrived in Constantinople 

The Syncd ~~ after the departure of Epiphanius, and 

was received with acclamations by the 

sailors of the Alexandrian corn-ships. Supported by 

about forty bishops he held a synod at the Oak, a villa 

near Constantinople. A strange medley of monstrous 

and incredible accusations was advanced against Chry- 
sostom, who declined to appear, and was deposed.® 

But the support of the people of Constantinople was 
too strong for the Imperial Court to proceed directly 
against Chrysostom; and an earthquake occurring at 
the time terrified the Empress Eudoxia into submission, 
Chrysostom had already retired from the city, but the 
populace compelled him to return. The Circensian 
games were in progress; but the theatre was deserted 
for the church when the Archbishop addressed the 
people. Theophilus was driven from the capital; the 
proceedings of the Synod of the Oak were reversed, and 
Chrysostom was confirmed in the resumption of his see 
by an assembly of sixty bishops. 

Thus the Church as a popular institution had 
been proved to be a match for the imperial authority 
in the capital of the East. But John’s enemies were 
too numerous and too influential to acquiesce in his 
triumph, nor was Eudoxia a sovereign to be thwarted 
with impunity. 

In September, a.p. 403, Chrysostom’s 
gurysostoms outspoken utterances gave his enemies 
their opportunity. Eudoxia’s statue, placed 

on a porphyry column in front of the church of St. 


I. Stephens, p. 302. 

2. The story told by Socrates (vi. 14) of the way Chrysostom and 
Epiphanius parted may be fairly discredited. For the interview between 
Epiphanius and Ammonius see Sozomen, VIII. 15. 

3. Hefele, Aestory of the Church Councils, § 115. Socr., VI. 15 
Soz., VIII. 17, 


CH. xvul.] = THE SILVER STATUE. 449 


Sophia, was dedicated with ceremonies recalling the 
times in which imperial personages were objects of 
worship. ‘The noise interrupted the ceremonies of the 
church, and the Archbishop sternly denounced the 
proceedings. It was reported to Eudoxia that he 
had exclaimed, ‘‘ Herodias is once more maddening ; 
Herodias is once more dancing; once more Herodias 
demands the head of John on a charger.”! He 
had been charged at the Synod of the Oak with 
calling the Empress Jezebel; and this was the 
culminating insult. The following Christmas, Arcadius 
declined to enter the cathedral while Chrysostom 
was there. Confident that the Patriarch had now 
forfeited the imperial favour, his enemies assembled 
in the capital, and by the advice of Theophilus, who 
was too prudent to risk discomfiture by appearing 
again on the scene, they charged him with violating 
the 12th Canon of the Council of Antioch (a.p. 341), 
forbidding a bishop deprived of his see by a synod 
to seek restoration from the temporal power.? On 
Easter Eve, Chrysostom was, as was his wont, presiding 
at the great baptismal service in the church of St. 
Sophia, which was celebrated at this season. There 
were three thousand candidates. Soldiers were sent 
to interrupt the ceremony and to drag the bishop from 
the church. Wild scenes of disorder followed; and for 
years the ‘ Joannites’, as the followers of John Chrysostom 
were called, were subject to a fierce persecution.’ In 
the following June, Arcadius was induced to sign a 
decree banishing Chrysostom, and the Patriarch was 
sent to Cucusus, a lonely village on the borders of 
Cilicia and Lesser Armenia. The treatment of ‘the 
aged saint during his exile was such as might be 
expected of an arbitrary government in the hands of 


1. These words are reported by Socrates (vi. 18) and Sozomen 
(VIII. 20); but the extant sermon containing them is said to be spurious. 
Hodgkin, Jtaly and her Invaders, vol. 1., p. 699. Bury, Hestory of the 
Later Roman Empire, vol. 1., p. 100, 

2. Hefele, Coumnczls, § 115. 


The church of St. Sophia was set on fire on the night of 
Chrysostom’s departure ; see Bury, of. czt., p. 101. This gave an excuse 
for the persecution of the Joannites, 


FF 


450 DEATH OF CHRYSOSTOM, (CH. XVIIL — 


a weak emperor swayed by favourites. He was hurried 


from place to place; and when at Cucusus his health 
was seen to improve, he was ordered to be transferred 
to Pityus on the Euxine. He was compelled to make 
the long journey on foot, and his guards were led to 
expect promotion should it prove fatal. At Comana 
his strength failed; and he died, in the sixtieth year 
of his age, and the tenth of his episcopate, having 
spent three and a quarter years in exile. His place at 
Constantinople was filled by Arsacius, the brother of 
his predecessor Nectarius, a man eighty years of age. 
Arsacius died the following year, and was succeeded 
by Atticus, who lived till 426 a.p.1. Thirty-one years 
after his death, the body of Chrysostom was brought 
to Constantinople with great honour, and buried in the 
church of the Holy Apostles.? 
The story of St. John Chrysostom 
State of the gives us an instructive picture of the 
Coigtanvinapie: Church of Constantinople in the fifth 
century. It reveals the corruption of the 
court, the upper classes, and above all of the clergy. It 
shews the impotence of a righteous patriarch, supported 
by the people of the city, to contend with the imperial 
power. For the point at issue in the case of Chrysostom 
was really whether the Patriarch of Constantinople 


should be allowed to take the position of a denouncer of 


wrong-doing wherever found. 
The see of Constantinople had already 


enacted been filled by two great saints, St. 


compared. Gregory of Nazianzus and St. John 
Chrysostom; and both had been driven 

away from the New Rome. The failure of Chrysostom 
to hold his position powerfully affected the destinies 


1. Sozomen, VIII. 27. Socrates, Vil. 2,25. It is curious how these 
two historians differ in their estimate of Atticus. Both agree that he was 
& most engaging personality and an excellent man of business ; but while 
Socrates says he was very learned, Sozomen says he was no scholar and a 
poor preacher, and that he was fully aware of the fact. Atticus liked to 
read and talk about clever books, but avoided discussing them with people 
who knew too much: a true proof of wisdom. The charity of Atticus 
knew no distinction of sect, but only considered the needs of its recipients. 

2. Hodgkin, /taly and her Invaders, vol. 1., p. 701. Bury, History 
Y the Later Roman Empire, vol. i, p. 104. 


\ 
CH. xvil.] © CHRYSOSTOM AND AMBROSE. 451 


of the Eastern Church. A weak emperor, urged on by 
a frivolous wife, had proved that the imperial power 
was irresistible against a bishop of undoubted sanctity 
and genius, supported by the love and respect of the 
inhabitants of the city. Another bishop had to succumb 
to prove finally that at Constantinople the emperor 
was the real governor of the Church, and that Caesaro- 
papalism was destined to prevail, first in the Church of 
the Eastern Empire, and afterwards in its great offspring, 
the Church of Russia. Before, however, considering 
the less honourable downfall of Nestorius, it may be 
well to compare and contrast the fate of St. Ambrose 
at Milan with that of St. John Chrysostom at 
Constantinople. In some respects they were alike; 
both were preachers of righteousness, both upholders 
of the authority of the Church against the unjust 
demands of the State, both having to deal with 
the fury of an enraged empress, both supported by 
their people. But Ambrose had not to contend with 
Chrysostom’s difficulties. He had not to face the 
malignant jealousy of the see of Alexandria, nor the 
hostility of a debased clergy; the citizens of Milan 
were no doubt more faithful supporters than the 
rabble of Constantinople: and Ambrose, when he came 
in conflict with Theodosius, had a great and generous 
man and soldier to deal with; whereas in Arcadius 
Chrysostom had a feeble creature under the government 
of court chamberlains and women. Still in character 
Ambrose shews that superiority which a Western trained 
to deal with men has over am Oriental brought up in 
the school and disciplined in the monastery. Though 
Chrysostom was his equal in purity of heart and 
integrity of purpose, and his superior as a theologian 
and scholar, Ambrose knew how to rule, and was 
possessed of that virility of character which gave the 
Church in the West a power which Oriental Christianity 
never possessed. 
We have now arrived at the period 
Controversy at which the controversy concerning the 
‘Tyo Natures’, Godhead and Manhood of our Lord reached 
| its acute form in the dispute concerning 
the orthodoxy of Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople. 


FF2 


452 THE TWO NATURES IN CHRIST. [cu. xvii. 


Before, however, relating the events connected with this, 
it is necessary to go back to the closing years of the 
fourth century, when the teaching of Apollinarius raised 
the point at issue, without however arousing the same 
violent passions as those which agitated the Church “Ad 
the fifth century. 

The difficulty of understanding how our Lord santa: 
be at once God and Man had presented itself from the 
first. ‘The Gnostics attempted to solve the question by 
denying His Humanity. Christ, said they, was only 
man in appearance (Soxjcet). The Fathers combated 
this view by insisting on the reality of the flesh of 
Christ. But the problem was not to be solved so 
easily. For Christ to be man it-was necessary for Him 
to do more than to take flesh upon Him, since man 
may be said to consist of Body and Soul, or of Body, 
Soul, and Spirit. If the “Word became Flesh” He must 
have taken all man’s nature upon Himself.2 The Arians, 
however, declared that if this were the case there would 
be two Sons, the God and the Man, as two distinct 
natures could not make one Person.2 They therefore 
taught that whilst Christ had a body and an animal 
soul (uy adoryos), the highest part of His nature was 
supplied by the Logos. At the same time, by teaching 
that the Logos was not perfectly Divine they maintained 
that Christ was a half-Divine Nature, capable of falling 
into sin and therefore capable of change (TpemTos).® 


1. Harnack, Azstory of Dogma, vol. IV., p. 139. Origen had 
admitted the presence of a human soul in our Lord : but long before this 
Clement of Rome, and later Irenaeus, had spoken of Christ giving ‘* His 
soul for our souls, and His body for our bodies”. 

2. Harnack, Hzstory of Dogma, vol. Iv., p. 147. The consequence 
was that they said that our Lord had become ‘incarnate, but had not been 
made man. So Eudoxius affirms in his creed that He was ‘‘the first of 
creatures, capxkwiévra otk évavOpwrijcavta, otre yap Wuxnv dvOpwrivyv 
dvethnpev GAA oapé yéyover, va Oia capKds Tots dvOpwmras ws did mapa- 
meTdopwaros Geds hutvy xpnuation.” 

3. Harnack, of, cz¢., vol. IV., p. 27. The question of the freedom of 
the will of our Lord raised by the Arians was only partly answered by the 
anathema affixed to the creed of Nicaea. In saying that Christ was not 
truly God the Arians affirmed that He was capable of moral change and 
alteration of character. The Creed, in maintaining His Divinity, denied 
this. ‘‘ It was content’ says Dr. Bethune-Baker ‘‘to repudiate the Arian 
teaching, which was inconsistent with His being God.” Jntroduction to 
Chrestian Doctrine, p. 170 (note). 


CH. XVIIL}] = § THE LOGOS IN CHRIST. 453 


This latter proposition Apollinarius 
of Laodicaea set himself to refute. As a 
friend of both Athanasius and Basil, and one of the 
leading opponents of Arianism, his zeal for the full 
true Divinity and perfect sinlessness of Christ was 
naturally strong. Bearing ever in mind that the keynote 
of the Athanasian doctrine of the Incarnation was that 
“God took flesh for our sakes” (Oe0s capxmOeis 80’ judas), 
Apollinarius, deeming it impossible that God and man 
could have coexisted in one Person in their full sense, 
asserted that the Logos occupied the place of the human 
rational soul in Christ, taking to Himself a human body 
and an animal soul. He taught that the Humanity of 
our Lord, not being moved by anything but the Logos, is 
incapable of sin, and that the result of the Logos taking 
the place of the higher Soul in Christ is that in Him 
there is only one Nature—that of the Logos become 
Flesh. ‘‘O new creation and wondrous mingling,” he 
exclaims, “God and Flesh produced one Nature.” 
(@ kawn KTiots Kai pi€is Oecmrecia, Beds Kal capé wiav atre- 
TérXecav gvow.) In this way he hoped to silence for ever 
the Arian heresy that Christ was capable of change.’ 

Apollinarius was in many respects a 

x pees theologian. In working out his theory 

was right. he recognises truths which the Church 

rightly regards as fundamental. He sees 
clearly, for example, that if Christ was no more 
than an inspired man, the effect of His death would 
not have been the abolition of death for all humanity.? 


. Apollinarius. 


1. Apollinarius was opposed to the Arian notion of a Xpiorés rperrés. 
According to his view, however, perfect God and perfect man in one being 
was inconceivable. It seemed to him that a complete ‘nature’ was the 
same thing as a ‘rerson’. See also the brief but suggestive article in 
Hastings’ Dict. of Rel. and Ethics by Dr. Adrian Fortescue. Apollinarius 
lays stress on the statement that the Word became not man but Flesh 
(cdpt). The latest writer on Apollinarianism is Leitzmann, Afol/inaris 
von Laodicea und seine Schule, Texte u.U. (Tiibingen, 1904.) Ei dvOpaérw 
terely cuvnpn Oeds Tédetos, Sto av Foav, els wev dice vids Oeot, els dé 
@erés. Harnack, of. czt., vol. IV., p. 151. Dorner, 1, p. 999 ff. 
Bethune-Baker, Christian Doctrine, p. 242. 

2. Apollinarius taught that the acknowledgement of a human £go in 
Christ would be destructive of the Christian doctrine of redemption, for 
avOpmmrov Odvaros ob karapyel Tov Odvarov. Our Lord must have assumed 
humanity as the perfect organ of the Godhead; and consequently the 
Godhead must have taken the place of the vots in man, 


454 PERSON AND SUBSTANCE. ~ [cH. xvi. 


He appears further to have emphasised the doctrine, 
afterwards admitted on all hands, that our Lord assumed 
not the nature of an individual man, but human nature 
in its entirety. He clearly saw that the purpose of the 
Incarnation had continued in being from all eternity; 
and that consequently the historical manifestation of the 
Logos in Christ is entirely different from the accidental 
Inspiration of any man. In a word, Apollinarius carried 
to its logical conclusion the Greek conception of Christi- 
anity, which was in his day almost confined to the 
doctrine of the Incarnation of the Logos.? 
His theory, however, was open to a 
Wherehe serious objection. In ignoring the com- 
plete Humanity of Christ, Apollinarius 
emptied the doctrine of the Incarnation of its real 
significance. His Christ was not the Christ of 
the Gospels, the Man who felt sorrow, who hungered, 
who suffered, who died, but the Logos performing 
His part in human form. But that which proved 
the greatest shock to the sensibilities of many 
prominent Christian teachers of the fifth century 
was that Apollinarius not only denied the reality 
of our. Lord’s Humanity, but attributed His suffer- 
ings to His Divine Nature. ‘“‘God suffered,” ‘God 
died.”” Against such expressions as these the school of 
Antioch, under Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of 
Mopsuestia, directed its energies.? 
The Western Church had also its 
The Western doctrine of the Incarnation, derived from 
doctrine of the Bg : P 
Incarnation,  lertullian’s memorable treatise Against 
Praxeas. ‘Tertullian had been unable to 
see any difficulty in the idea of two substances being 
united in One Person, nor in the fact that after this 
union each substance retained its own peculiarities. 
By this writer substantia was used to represent the 
Greek gvois: but he appears to have employed the 
word in its legal rather than in its philosophical sense. 
A persona is in technical language anyone capable of 
entering into a contract or legal obligation. As one 


1. Harnack, History of Dogma, vol. 1V., pp. 154, 155+ 
2. Bethune-Baker, of. cit., p. 246, 


CH, XVIII.] THREE VIEWS OF THE NATURES. 455 


person can hold several substances (i.e. properties), so 
Christ is conceived of as One Person possessed of two 
Natures, the Divine and the Human.! 

(Page This theory is, however, not above 
Chief opinions criticism. As Apollinarius pointed out, 
Incaruation. @ perfect God and a perfect Man can 

never make a uniform being. There is 
an apparently irreconcileable contradiction, a gulf 
between the two Natures which it is hard to bridge 
over. Nevertheless the Christian conscience and the 
testimony of the Gospels alike demand that Christ 
should be perfect God and perfect Man. At this point, 
therefore, it seems advisable to enumerate the three 
parties :— 

1. The Apollinarian, which recognised in Christ 
only one Person, z.e., that of the Logos 
Incarnate. 

2. The Antiochene, which laid special stress on the 
human Ego in Christ and on the main- 
tenance of the impassibility of the Divine 
Nature of our Lord as distinct from the 
Human. | 

3. The Western, which saw in Christ two natures, 
the Divine and the Human, each retaining 
its own attributes. 

The complete Humanity of Christ 
was first asserted at the Council of Alex- 
andria, A.D. 362, where opinions similar to 
those of Apollinarius were reprobated.* About a.p. 370 
the Cappadocians joined in the attack on these doctrines, 
and sought, but in vain, to shew that they included the 
assertion that the flesh of Christ was created in Heaven 
and existed before He became incarnate.? Neither 
Gregory of Nazianzus nor his name-sake of Nyssa were 
very sure of their ground in this controversy; and the 
latter uses a famous simile, which would in later times 


Condemnation of 
Apollinarianism. 


1. Harnack, Héstory of Dogma, vol. Iv., pp. 122 (note), 144—146, 
Tertullian (Adv. Praxeam) says: ‘‘Videmus duplicem statum, non confusum 
sed conjunctum in una persona, deum et hominem, Jesum.” 

2. Athanasius, Zomus ad Antiochenos, § 7. 

Harnack, of. cét., vol. IV.» pp. 154 —5 (note). Bethune-Baker, 


op. cit., pp. 245 ff. 


456 DECISION OF ROME. (CH. XVIII. 


have been condemned as Eutychian. ‘The first-fruits 
of human nature assumed by the almighty Godhead, 
as one might say—using a simile—like some drop of 
vinegar commingled with the infinite ocean, are in the 
Godhead, but not in their own peculiar properties. For 
if it were so, then it would follow that a duality of 
Sons might be conceived—if, that is, in the ineffable 
Godhead of the Son some nature of another kind existing 
in its own special characteristics were recognised—in 
such wise that one part was weak or little or corruptible 
or temporary, and the other powerful and great and 
incorruptible and eternal.’! In theory the Cappadocians 
were less opposed to Apollinarius than they were in 
practice; for though, as Origenists, they clung to the 
belief in the Free Will of our Lord, they thought of 
Him in reality only as Divine.? 

The Roman theologians were more decided. They, 
as we have seen, had been taught by Tertullian to think 
of two natures (substantiae) in one Person, and they had 
little hesitation in condemning Apollinarianism at a 
synod at Rome held under Damasus in A.D. 377 or 378. 
This condemnation is reiterated in the seventh anathema 
of the so-called ‘Tome of Damasus’, belonging pro- 
bably to a.p. 381: ‘We anathematize those who say 
that the Word of God had His conversation in human 


flesh instead of the reasonable and intelligent soul of 


a man, since the Son Himself is the Word of God, and 
not in His own body in place of a reasonable and intelli- 
gent soul; but He has taken upon Him and preserved 
our soul, that is a reasonable and intelligent soul, (but) 
without sin.”* A synod held at Antioch in a.p. 379, and 
the Second General Council also, pronounced it heresy 
to say with Apollinarius that the Logos took the place 
of the human soul in Christ; but the question of the 
two Natures was left open.‘ 


1. Ep. adv. Apoll. (Migne, vol. 45, p- 1276), quoted by Bethune- 
Baker, of. cz¢t., p. 247. 

2. Harnack, of. czt., IV., p. 160. 

3. Harnack, of. cit., IV., p. 158. Hahn, Symbole, p. 199. Hefele, 
Councils, § 91. Sozomen, VI. 25. Theodoret, v. 11. The date seems 
very uncertain. Bethune-Baker, of. cét., p. 214. 

4 Hefele, Coumnctls, § 91. Gregory of Nyssa, ad Olymp. 


CH. XvIL]  ANTIOCHIAN CHRISTOLOGY. 457 


eee, The school of Antioch under Diodore 
Antioch, (394) and his more famous pupil, Theodore 
; of Mopsuestia (d. 428), now rose to the 
height of its fame. It had produced John Chrysostom, 
the great preacher and sufferer for righteousness, and now 
enjoyed the fame of Theodore, the greatest commentator 
of antiquity. The general tone of its theologians was 
scholarly and critical, attaching great importance alike 
to the grammatical sense of Holy Scripture and to the 
Humanity and historical character of our Lord. 

As the Christological controversy turned on the 
rival views of the Antiochian school as expounded by 
Theodore of Mopsuestia, and those of St. Cyril as 
mouthpiece of the Alexandrians, it is desirable that the 
opinions of these theologians should be set forth in 
turn. 

Theodore, bishop of Mopsuestia, in 
his work on the Incarnation shews how 
God dwells in man. To say that this is 
an indwelling of the ‘ Being’ of God is absurd, because 
the essence of that Being is omnipresence. Equally 
unreasonable is it to define the indwelling of God 
as no more than His presence in all His creatures. 
Those in whom God is pleased to dwell are objects 
of His choice (evdoxia). Such in a sense is the in- 
dwelling of the Logos in the Man Jesus. But it is 
the height of madness to say that this is similar in 
degree to the presence of God in a believer. The 
indwelling of the Logos in the Christ began with 
His conception in the Virgin’s womb. The closeness 
of this union was continually increasing; and at His 
Baptism our Lord became united not only with the 
Logos but with the Holy Ghost. Though Theodore 
does not shrink from employing the word ‘union’ 
(€vwos) to express the way in which the Manhood and 
Godhead are joined together, he prefers to say the natures 
were held together by conjunction (cuvdadera) .* 


Theodore of 
Mopsuestia. 


1. Bethune-Baker, of. czt., p. 257. The passage in which these 
views are expressed is from a lost work Ox the Incarnation. See 
Dr. Swete’s Vheodore of Mopsuestia on the Minor Epistles of St. Paul, 
vol. 1., pp. Ixxxi ff. See Dr. Srawley in Hastings’ Dzct. of Religion and 
Ethics, art. ‘ Antiochene Theology’, and Loofs Westoriana. 


th, oe 


458 SERMON BY ANASTASIUS, _— [cH. xviIL 


This system laid the utmost stress on the Human 
Nature of Christ—in other words, on the historical 
Jesus of the Gospels, as well as on the Freedom of His 
Will. Theodore held that, as Grace does not transform 
nature, but only elevates it, so even the Manhood of 
Christ remained manhood when conjoined with His 
Divinity... It is not a little significant that in the 
contemporary Western controversy on Grace and Free 
Will the Pelagians had the support of the Antiochene 
divines. 

Nestorius Such were the opinions promulgated 
Patriarch, by Theodore, who died in full communion 
OThe Miearetog? With the Church in a.p. 428, the year in 
“which the Antiochene presbyter Nestorius 

was elected Patriarch of Constantinople. It was the 
expression of the same views by the eloquent preacher, 
who, like St. John Chrysostom, had been transferred 
from Antioch to the capital, which caused the outbreak 
of the almost endless Christological controversy. The 
title Theotokos (Qeotoxos, she who gave birth to God), 
which had become increasingly popular with the growing 
importance of the Virgin Mary in the Christian 
system, was disputed in a sermon preached by the 
chaplain of the Patriarch, the presbyter Anastasius. 
“Let no one” he exclaimed ‘call Mary Theotokos; 
for Mary was but a woman, and it was impossible that 
God should be born of a woman.’* ‘This sentence 


1. ‘The Antiochians” says Dr. WHarnack ‘‘fully accepted the 
perfect humanity of Christ. The most important characteristic of this 
perfect humanity is its freedom. The thought that Christ possessed a 
free will was the lode-star of their Christology.” Ast. of Doguia, IV., 

. 165. 

i 2. Socrates, vit. 32. Harnack, Ast. of Dogma, vol. Iv., p. 168. 
See further Bethune-Baker, WMestordus and his Teaching, pp. 55 fi.: ‘The 
term had been in vogue, in some circles at least, for many years. 
Responsible theological teachers like Origen, Athanasius, Eusebius of 
Caesarea, and Cyril of Jerusalem, had used it incidentally, while Julian’s 
taunt ‘You never stop calling Mary Zkheofokos’ would seem to point 
to a wider popular use.” Theodore of Mopsuestia was apparently the 
first to take exception to the title. The state of affairs which led Nestorius 
to protest against the use of the term may be well illustrated from his 
first letter to Celestine. ‘*There are even some of our own clergymen” 
he writes ‘‘who openly blaspheme God the Word consubstantial with 
the Father, representing Him as having received His first origin from 
the Virgin Mother of Christ.” Quoted by Bethune-Baker, of. cz¢:, p. 16, 


CH. XVIII] _ POSITION OF CYRIL. 459 


was accepted as a challenge by St. Cyril, bishop of 
Alexandria. 
When we reach the facts of the con- 
eae troversy, the conduct of St. Cyril will 
exandria. 
A.D. 412-444, Merit censure; but as a theologian the 
position of the bishop is less easy to assail. 
In ability and in insight into the merits of the question 
he is superior to all who attempted to grapple with it, 
and the dexterity. with which he avoided pitfalls on 
either side is really admirable. To refute the Antiochian 
theology, and at the same time to avoid falling under 
condemnation of Apollinarius, was a truly surprising 
eat. 

Cyril started with one great advantage. Antiquity 
was on his side. His theology was that of Irenaeus, 
Athanasius, and the Cappadocians, whilst that of the 
Antiochian school was open to the charge of innovating.' 
The need of the Humanity of Christ had not been so 
strongly perceived in the early Church as that of His 
Divinity: consequently the Fathers had been content 
with asserting the reality of the flesh assumed by the 
Logos. ‘The somewhat crude way in which Apollinarius 
had explained the relation of the Humanity to the 
Divinity of the Saviour had startled his contempo- 
raries, just as the Arian theology had offended men of an 
earlier generation; but in their hearts the theologians 
_of the time were agreed that Cyril, in propounding his 
doctrine, was rather refuting an error than putting 
forward a theory. This helps to explain the fact that 
this Father is not always consistent in his language. 

Cyril sets forward as the view of the 

Cyril's ere Catholic Church that the Logos took 
Incarnation. human nature to Himself in the womb 
of the Virgin Mary, and that therefore 

the title of Theotokos properly belongs to her. By so 
doing, he maintained that Godhead and Manhood were 


1. ‘*The view adopted by Cyril is undoubtedly the ancient 
view, that namely of Irenaeus, etc. . . . The interest they had in seeing in 
Christ the most perfect unity of the divine and the human, and therefore 
their interest in the reality of our redemption, determined the character 
of the development of the doctrine.” Harnack, Azs¢. of Dogma, vol. IVs, 


Pp. 174. 


460 “COMMUNICATIO IDIOMATUM.’ [cu. xviII. - 


united in the Incarnate Logos in one Person (els é& 
aupotépwy Xpiotos Kal vios.) Before the Incarnation — 
there were Two Natures, but being united these can only 
be distinguished ‘in theory’. The Godhead is not, of 
course, able to suffer; but, as the Logos was united to 
the flesh, we may say that His flesh tasted death. Thus 
we have the doctrine of the Communicatio Idiomatum 
(avtidocts iSuoudrov), namely that here on earth our Lord 
was one Person, but He underwent different experiences 
in virtue of His two different Natures. 

What Cyril is most anxious to shew is (a) the 
unchangeableness of Christ—it was impossible for Him 
to sin, and (6) the fact that the Incarnation was not 
the taking of a human personality by the Logos, but 
the assumption of humanity itself. The Logos took 
all human nature into Himself, and thus in Christ 
became the Second Adam. In this way man is redeemed 
from sin by participating in the flesh which the Saviour 
has glorified. This flesh, with its life-giving properties 
received from the Logos, is a means of bestowing Divine 
life on man in the Eucharistic Sacrament.? 

Such was the relative position of the two great 
Schools when the controversy broke out; and it will be 
clearly seen that, even though the weapons of the warfare 
of both were carnal in the extreme, and mutual jealousy 
embittered the Alexandrian prelate and his brother of 
Constantinople, there were great principles at stake. 
In many respects the dispute has lasted down to the 
present time; only now it does not ostensibly take its 
rise in the use of the term Theotokos, but in the belief 
in the Virgin Birth.? 

The great determining factor was the 
Roman See. Not because its theologians 
were better equipped for doctrinal questions than 
those of the East; but on account of its detachment 


The Roman See. 


1. Cyril’s Dogmatic Letter to Nestorius. UWahn, p. 310. Bethune- 
Baker, Introduction to Early History of Christian Doctrine, p. 267. 
Harnack, AZstory of Dogma, vol. 1V., p. 176 ff. 

2. <Anathematisms against Nestorius, X1., x11. Hahn, p. 315. 
Harnack, of, cit., vol. Iv., p. 299. Bethune-Baker, of. czt., pe 294 
(Christ’s Human Nature Impersonal). 

3- Additional Note at end of Chapter. 


CH. XVIII. ] DEFECTS OF NESTORIUS. 461 


from the rivalries which distracted the Oriental patri- 
archates. Hitherto the doctrine of the Latins had been 
somewhat in sympathy with that of Antioch; but Rome 
and Alexandria were ancient allies, and possibly the 
Pelagian controversy may also have prejudiced the 
question. At any rate, the result of the dispute between 
Cyril and Nestorius seemed to depend on which of the 
two handled Rome most diplomatically. 

Nestorius, qualified by eloquence alone 
for the high position to which he had been 
summoned, was neither as a theologian 
nor as a man of affairs a match for a powerful rival 
like Cyril. He appears to have been an honest but 
narrow-minded man, unversed in the ways of the world, 
and filled with zeal against heretics. Socrates, the 
historian, reports his foolish utterance in a sermon 
before the Emperor: “ Restore unto me, O Emperor, 
the world weeded and purged of hereticks, and I will 
render heaven unto thee: aid thou me in foiling of the 
hereticks, and I will assist thee in the overthrowing 
of the Persians.”* But for Socrates’ known dislike of 
intolerance we might suspect that the zeal of Nestorius 
would have been commended, had not his subsequent 
opinions been condemned; but the historian, who was 
living in Constantinople at the time, may have only 
recorded the public estimation of the Patriarch whose 
determination to put down heresy by force had led even 
orthodox Christians to term hima firebrand. He appears 
to have been not unlike Chrysostom in his eloquence, 
earnestness, and ignorance of the world: though inferior 
to his great predecessor in genius, learning, and probably 
in genuine piety. Yet it is impossible not to feel that, 
even if the opinions of Nestorius were erroneous, his 
deposition was due to cabals and intrigues as unprincipled 
as those which led to the exile of John Chrysostom. He 
bore the sufferings of his exile with patience, and the 
opinions which have covered his name with such infamy 
were neither originated nor even strongly held by him. 
It is by the irony of fate that Nestorius is branded with 


Nestorius 
oitends the Pope. 


1. Socrates, v11. 29. Meredith Hanmer’s Translation, 1631. His 
view of the Nestorian controversy is given VII. 32. He has but a low 
opinion of the Patriarch’s learning and intelligence. 


F 4 att tee eet 


462 APPEAL TO ROME _ [cu. xvi. 


the name of a heresiarch, whilst those who held almost 
the same views have died in the odour of sanctity. He 
was a victim to the ecclesiastical politics of his age.? 
The part taken by Innocent in the affair of St. John 
Chrysostom had shewn how superior in moral elevation 
the tone of the Roman Church was to that of the Eastern 
patriarchates. In all his troubles Chrysostom had re- 
ceived support from Rome, and Nestorius naturally 
looked to the great Western see for help. Celestine, who 
had been Pope since a.D. 422, might well have stood by 
Nestorius; since his own doctrine of the Two Natures 
was practically the same as that of the Antiochian 
School. But Nestorius had incurred his displeasure, 
firstly by refusing to condemn some Pelagians who had 


fled to Constantinople from the anger of the Pope, and - 


subsequently by writing a letter in which he appeared 
to assume that, as bishop of New Rome, he was the 
equal of Celestine. Cyril adopted a more prudent 
course by addressing Celestine in a tone of greater 
subserviency.?, The Pope determined to put down Nes- 


1. It must be remembered that until quite recently we have been 
compelled to form our ideas of the teaching of Nestorius almost entirely 
from the statements of his opponents. Lately, however, fresh evidence 
has come to light, notably a work known as the Bazaar of Heraclides. 
This proves to be the work of Nestorius himself, written during his exile 
in Egypt, and has long been known and valued among the Nestorian 
Christians. Its nature may be learnt from the statement of its contents 
prefixed by the Syriac translator : 


Book I. 


Part I. ‘Of all the heresies opposed to the Church and of all the 
differences with regard to the faith of the 318.’ 

ParTII. ‘Against Cyril. ... of the exactions (or examination) of the 
judges and the charges of (or against) Cyril.’ 

ParT III. ‘ His own apology, and a copy (or comparison) of their letters.’ 


Boox II. 


Part I. ‘An apology, and a refutation of the charges (against him), 
dealing with those matters for which he was excommunicated.’ 
ParT II. ‘From his excommunication till the close of his life.’ 


A fresh examination of the evidence has accordingly been undertaken 
by Dr. Bethune-Baker, and published under the title of Mestorzus and his 
Teaching. He has shewn that the views of Nestorius have been greatly 
misrepresented and his language distorted by his enemies. The conclusion 
to which he has come is that ‘‘it is impossible to believe that Nestorius 
was ‘ Nestorian’.” 


2. Harnack, of. ¢tt., vol. IV., p. 183. 


CH. XvilI.}] | COUNCIL OF EPHESUS. 463 


torius, and at a synod at Rome in a.p. 430 he ordered 
the Patriarch to recant on pain of excommunication.! 
Cyril had in the meantime offered to Nestorius twelve 
propositions to anathematize, and Nestorius had retorted 
by twelve counter anathematisms.? At the instigation 
of Nestorius, Theodosius II., who at first supported him 
in his dispute with Cyril, decided to call a general 
council to meet at Ephesus at Whitsuntide, a.p. 431. 
The third General Council is a proof 
Council of that such assemblies, if infallible, are 
Ephesus, : ; 
A.D. 431. certainly not impeccable; for the con- 
demnation of Nestorius was procured bya 
series of intrigues begun by Cyril and highly discreditable 
to all concerned. 
Memnon, bishop of Ephesus, like Cyril, was an 
opponent of Nestorius ; and the two resolved to begin the 
Council before the arrival of the Syrian bishops, headed 
by John of Antioch. John had sent messengers to Cyril 
promising that he would arrive within six days; but 
Cyril, either suspecting his friendship with Nestorius, or 
else divining that John desired delay in order that he 
might intervene as arbitrator in the dispute, began the 
Council on June 22, when Nestorius was at once deposed 
and excommunicated. The Syrian bishops arrived on 
June 26 or 27; and, in disgust at Cyril’s conduct, held 
a tival council and excommunicated the bishops of 
Alexandria and Ephesus.’ 
The unfortunate Nestorius found him- 
rhe pestis ya self deserted on all sides. The imperial 
haniahad: power which had supported him was no 
longer exercised in his favour; his friends 
fell off, and he was banished to the monastery of St. 
Euprepius at Antioch, from whence he had been sum- 
moned to the patriarchate of Constantinople. When 
John of Antioch and Cyril were reconciled, the former 
procured the removal of Nestorius to a more distant 


1. After a council had been held in Rome, A.D. 430. 
2. Hahn, Symdo/e, pp. 312—318. Bethune-Baker, of. czt., pp. 263 ff. 
Bright, Canons of the First Four General Councils, pp. 125 ff. 
Candidian, the Imperial Commissioner, begged Cyril to wait for John, but 
he refused, displaying thereby “a want of faith”. Neale, Hest. Patr. 
Alexand., 1., p. 59. 


464 NESTORIUS IN EXILE, (CH. XVIII. 


place of exile. He was sent to the Oasis of Ptolemais, 
captured by Blemmyes, and liberated in the Thebaid. 
He was again arrested, and dragged, by order of the 
Emperor, as Chrysostom had been, from place to place. 
Nothing is known of his end; but the recently discovered 
Bazaar of Hervaclides proves that he must have survived 
the Council of Chalcedon in 451.1 But with the Council 
of Ephesus he disappears from history. He did not even 
adhere obstinately to the doctrines for which he was 
condemned. ‘Let Mary be called Theotokos and let 
disputing cease,” he cried.2. Dangerous as were the 
opinions attributed to him, Nestorius was rather a 
victim to unscrupulous intrigues than a formidable 
heresiarch. ki 
But the disappearance of Nestorius did 
The controversy not mean that the controversy was at an 
after the Vouncil ; : 
of Epnesus, | Cnd: on the contrary, it raged with re- 
newed vigour when the half-unwitting 
cause of the trouble was out of the way. With Cyril at 
war with the bishop of Antioch, there seemed little 
prospect of peace; for though Nestorius had been 
unaccountably deserted by all his former supporters, the 
School of Antioch was bitterly aggrieved, feeling that 
the Alexandrian teaching had gained a victory by a 
snatch vote of a council packed with the supporters 
of Cyril. As early as 431 the Antiochenes drew up a 
formula of their belief, which they sent to the Emperor. 
It was a document which Nestorius himself could have 
signed, for the word ‘ Theotokos’ was explained by 
saying “ There was a union (évwous) of the two Natures, 
and therefore we confess that the holy Virgin is Mother 
of God.” This creed is said to have been the work of 
Theodoret, bishop of Cyrus, who played so prominent a 
part in later controversy.* Theodosius II., who was far 
from being pleased with Cyril’s conduct at Ephesus, 
encouraged the reconciliation of the two rival prelates of 


1. Bethune-Baker, Mestorius and his Teaching, pp. 36 ff., and an 
article by the same writer, ‘ Date of the Death of Nestorius,’ in the Journal 
of Theological Studies, vol. 1X., No. 36. 

2. Socrates, H. Z. vil. 33. ‘ But no man thought that he spoke this 
and repented in his heart.” 

3. Hahn, Symbole, p. 215. Harnack, Hzst. of Dogma, Iv., p. 189. 


CH. XVII] THE COMPROMISE, 465 


Alexandria and Antioch; and Paul, bishop of Emesa, 
was sent to Alexandria to arrange matters. He shewed 
much tact in soothing Cyril’s susceptibilities ; and in 
a sermon he declared, to the joy of the people, that 
“Mary brought forth Emmanuel”, i.e. the Godhead as 
well as the Manhood of the Saviour. In 433 the recon- 
ciliation between John of Antioch and Cyril was finally 
arranged; and though neither prelate pleased the ex- 
treme members of his party by the concessions he had 
made, peace lasted till Cyril’s death in a.p. 444, and 
Nestorianism was by the aid of the Imperial authorities 
thrust beyond the frontiers of the Empire.? 
7 al reage Cyril of Alexandria is one of those 
“Cyril, great characters in Church History to 
whom it is scarcely possible to do justice. 
We are naturally prejudiced against him, for the un- 
scrupulous exercise of his position at the head of the 
Alexandrian Church to further those ambitious projects 
which had long been the tradition of his see. We are 
inclined to pronounce him an excellent theologian but 
a bad man, and to regard this divorce of practice from 
theory as a specially odious trait in his character. In 
addition to his behaviour at Ephesus, the murder of 
Hypatia will always leave a stain on his memory, though 
it is impossible to prove his complicity. Yet it is 
possible that the faults exhibited by Cyril were the 
failings of a system rather than of an individual. The 
two Churches with a distinct policy in the fourth and 
fifth centuries were Rome and Alexandria. Their cir- 
cumstances were not unlike, since the two cities were 
at this period remarkable for their independence of 
imperial control, and their jealousy of the upstart 
pretensions of Constantinople. The difference between 


Boe. Chr, Dioe,, art. ‘Cyril’, vol. 1., p. 7714. 

2. Socrates, vil. 15. ‘‘No trustworthy account connects Cyril 
directly with her murder ; but of course he must bear the blame of parti- 
cipation in the temper which led to it.” Dzct. Chr. Biog., art. ‘ Hypatia’. 
Socrates, who is very hostile to Cyril, does not directly lay the blame of 
the murder upon him ; and Stanley (Zastern Church, Lect. vil.) is hardly 
justified in saying that even the orthodox suspected Cyril of complicity 
in the murder. But Newman is right when he says ‘‘I don’t think 
Cyril himself would like his historical acts to be taken as the measure 
of his inward sanctity”: quoted by Dom Butler, 7ze Laustac History of 
Palladius. 


GG 


466 CHARACTER OF CYRIL __[cu. xvi. 


them lay in the fact that, whilst Rome’s ambition was 
to legislate, Alexandria desired to direct the theology of 
the rest of the Church. The two sees had been natural 
allies since the days of Athanasius ; though to the credit 
of Rome it must be said that Theophilus forfeited the 
friendship of the Apostolic See by his conduct towards 
Chrysostom. 

At Ephesus Cyril appears in a better light than 
Nestorius. He shewed no subservience to the secular 
power: but fearlessly upheld the right of the Church to 
manage her own affairs. If unscrupulous, Cyril was at 
least no time-server. In his dealings with John of 
Antioch, the bishop of Alexandria shewed that he was 
not altogether destitute of the wise and statesmanlike 
qualities of his great predecessor, Athanasius. He knew 
how to give way in minor points, provided main prin- 
ciples were preserved. In his later days he had to bear 
the reproach of having temporised in order to secure the 
unity of the Church. But in clearness of insight into 
the exact merits of the complicated controversy about 
the Two Natures, Cyril was unrivalled.’ 

The controversy was to Cyril no mere question of 
words and names. It was in his eyes of as vital im- 
portance as the Arian dispute had been to Athanasius. 
It may be that the relation of the Two Natures of Christ 
may again be the subject of discussion, and that the — 
theology of Cyril may be of service in bringing men 
to a clear view of the merits of the case. To Cyril, 
Nestorianism—the sharp separation of the Manhood 
from the Godhead—meant neither more nor less than 
the denial of the Incarnation of the Word of God, and 
this was the pivot round which the whole theology of 
Alexandria had revolved.? 

BARE Nestorianism, unlike Arianism, caused 
of Nestorianien, @ breach in the Eastern Church which 
was never healed. At Edessa, despite the 

efforts of Rabbulas the bishop, a strong supporter of 
Cyril, the works of Theodore of Mopsuestia were widely 
I. Harnack says of Cyril: ‘*In a question which was to him a 
matter of faith Cyril had agreed to a compromise, in proof of the fact that 
all hierarchs are open to conviction when they are in danger of losing 


power and influence.” Hés¢. Dogma, vol. IV., p. 189. 
2 Harnack, Hist. of Dogma, vol. 1V., p. 174—175. 


CH. XVIII.] ~NESTORIANISM SPREADS, 407 


disseminated, thanks to the efforts of Ibas, who succeeded 
Rabbulas. Barsumas, an enthusiastic Nestorian who had 
been driven out of Edessa by Rabbulas, established 
himself at Nisibis, which now became the centre of 
the movement. The Persian kings tolerated no form 
of Christianity but Nestorianism, which is accused of 
having shewn undue compliance towards the opinions 
of the Zoroastrian priests. From Persia the Nestorian 
missionaries went to the Far East, perhaps even to 
China.? 
Cyril died in a.p. 444, and was 
woe succeeded by Dioscorus, rat had been 
his archdeacon. Though he was doubtless the subject 
of much calumny, there seems little reason to question 
the general opinion that the new bishop was an 
arrogant and violent man. If we may believe one 
of his accusers at Chalcedon, Dioscorus inaugurated 
his episcopate by a persecution of the friends and 
relatives of Cyril. He was further accused of saying 
that Egypt belonged to him rather than to the Emperors, 
a charge which reminds us of the one made against 
Athanasius a century earlier, that he had threatened to 
use his influence as bishop to stop the corn ships sailing 
to Constantinople.? Dioscorus seems to have upheld all 
the high pretensions of his position; and he very nearly 
succeeded in imposing the creed of Alexandria on the 
Christian world, nor was his failure due solely to his 
defects of character. 
: The imperial Court at Constantinople 
pheogo S69, Was controlled by the religious grand- 
children of the great Theodosius. The 
Emperor Theodosius II. was a prototype of the sort of 


1. Bethune-Baker, Jutroduction to the Early History of Christian 
Doctrine, p. 279, ‘The Nestorian (East-Syrian) Church.’—‘‘In the 
eleventh and twelfth centuries,” Dr. Baker says, ‘‘ the Nestorian Church 
had become the largest Christian body in the world—the Christian Church 
of the Far East.” Dorner, Doct. of Person of Christ, Div. 11, vol. 1., 
Eng. Transl.—The Nestorian “ was the first party which the Church 
shewed itself incapable of overcoming—an incapability arising from its 
neglecting either to appropriate or to evolve from itself the element of 
truths of which the party was the representative”. 

2. Vide supra, p. 317. For the charges brought against Dioscorus at 
the Council of Chalcedon, see the Dict. Chr. Biog., art. ‘ Dioscorus’, 

GG 2 


468 A PIOUS EMPEROR, ~ [CH. XVIII. 


pious sovereign occasionally produced by mediaeval 
Christianity. Pope Leo describes him as “having not 
only the heart of an emperor, but also of a priest”. He 
was a good and merciful man; and he is honourably 
distinguished among Christian rulers for his regard 
for human life. When asked why he did not inflict 
capital punishment, his answer was, “It is neither a 
great nor a difficult thing to put a mortal to death, 
but it is God only who can resuscitate by repentance 
a man who has once died.”* But his virtues were 
almost nullified by his «superstitious devotion to the 
clergy, and especially to the monks. Such a preposterous 
ascetic as Symeon the Stylite had only to command to 
be obeyed.? 

The palace at Constantinople was said to resemble 
a monastery, the daily round of services being observed 
by the Emperor and his four sisters: but the whole 
administration of the Empire was characterised by 
imbecility; and Attila, the king of the Huns, who had 
invaded Europe, was allowed to be a constant menace 
as long as Theodosius lived. The Emperor’s chief 
interest was theology; and he intervened in all the 
disputes of his time without discretion. He supported 
Nestorius, and then abandoned him, ordering his works 
to be burned, and his followers to be called Simonians, 


after Simon Magus, the father of heresy. In the Euty- 


chian controversy he favoured the Alexandrian party, 
which suffered defeat directly his power to protect it 
ceased at his death in a.p. 450. For the last seven years 
of his reign, Theodosius was under the sway of his 
minister, the eunuch Chrysaphius. 
Puleheria His second sister, Pulcheria, was in 
"some respects a worthy daughter of the 
House of Theodosius the Great. At the age of fifteen, 


4 


1. S. Leo Magn., £¢. vit. ‘Ut nobis non solum regium sedetiam 
sacerdotalem animum inesse gaudeamus.” Socrates, H. Z. Vii. 22 f. 

2. Symeon the Stylite, after practising many austerities, erected his 
pillar at Antioch in A.D. 423. In A.D. 430 it had reached the height of 
40 cubits. He made Theodosius revoke an edict restoring to the Jews the 
synagogues at Antioch from which the Christians had expelled them. 
Evagrius, 1. 13. Noldeke, Sketches from Eastern History, Vil. 

3. Hodgkin, /taly and her Invaders, vol. 1.5 pe 9Je 


CH, XVIII.] © .PULCHERIA AUGUSTA, 469 


when her brother the Emperor was thirteen years old, 
she was declared Augusta; and she instructed him in 
all the etiquette of an oriental court, teaching him 
the art of bearing himself with dignity, and of shewing 
affability or condescension where desirable! She also 
had the lad trained in manly exercises; but above all 
things she instilled into her brother’s mind piety and 
reverence to those in authority in the Church. After 
her brother’s death, July 28, 450, for the sake of the 
Empire, she married Marcian, a soldier and senator of 
experience; and her choice was justified by the way in 
which he dispelled the fear of Attila, who had been a 
danger to the Empire so long as Theodosius was ready 
to buy him off, but ceased to be formidable when the 
government was in the hands of a soldier and a man 
of courage. It was Pulcheria and Marcian who brought 
about the settlement of the Eutychian controversy at 
Chalcedon. 


Policy 
of Dioscorus. 


Cyril, it will be remembered, had 
pacified the Church by his compromise 
with the Antiochian school in A.D. 433. 
The terms Qeotoxos and évwais—the latter as applied 
to the Two Natures—were accepted, and the bishop 
of Alexandria had acknowledged that the Two Natures 
at the Incarnation were united into one. But the School 
of Antioch still clung to the teaching of Theodore 
of Mopsuestia; whilst the Alexandrians persisted that 
Christ’s Nature after the Incarnation was One Nature 
made flesh (ula guots cecapkwpevn). 

Since the victory of Cyril over Nestorius, Theo- 
dosius II. had been entirely under the guidance of the 
Alexandrian party, and Dioscorus saw the opportunity 
of bringing the whole of the Eastern Church under 
the dominion of Alexandria, as the Rome of Eastern 
Christendom. But to raise his see to this position it 
was necessary to declare the upholders of the Two 
Natures, especially Theodoret, bishop of Cyrus, and 
Ibas of Edessa, to be heretics, and to bring upon Flavian, 
Patriarch of Constantinople, the fate of St. John 
Chrysostom and Nestorius, 


I. Sozomen, IX. I. 


470 AN EASTERN DIOCESE, [CH, XVIIl, 


Theodoret is one of the most interesting 
characters in the fifth century. He was 
bishop of Cyrus or Cyrrhus, a town in 
the province of Euphratensis adjoining Coele-Syria, 
and subject to the authority of the bishop of Antioch. 
Cyrus, though an unimportant town, was the seat of 
a bishop who had the charge of no less than eight 
hundred parishes, most of them with churches of their 
own, and a vast number of religious houses. The 
episcopal revenues were in themselves sufficient to enable 
the bishop to execute works of public utility, and to 
v#mbellish the city. The diocese of Cyrus was about 
forty miles in length and breadth.!} 

Theodoret, though he had materially assisted in 
the union of 433, had been a personal enemy of Cyril, 
and had never assented to the excommunication of 
Nestorius. Dioscorus therefore singled him out as a 
special object of vengeance, and the Emperor was 
persuaded to order Domnus, who had in A.D. 441 
succeeded his uncle John as bishop of Antioch, to 
proceed against Theodoret in his capacity of Patriarch. 
But Domnus, though he shewed much weakness after- 
wards, on this occasion stood by his friend; and 
Theodoret was at least allowed to retain his diocese. 

It seemed as though the ruin of Flavian, — 
ae head ; the Patriarch of Constantinople, would be 
Constantinople, More easy to accomplish. Flavian had 
and Eutyches.. already incurred the ill-will of Theodosius, 

and he was embroiled in a dispute with 
Eutyches, the archimandrite of a great monastery in 
the neighbourhood of the capital, and a violent anti- 
Nestorian. Ata synod at Constantinople on November q 
8, A.D. 448, Eusebius of Dorylaeum accused Eutyches to 
Flavian of denying the Two Natures of Jesus Christ. | 
What made the charge more weighty lay in the fact 
that the accuser had been an enemy of Nestorius. 
Eutyches was deposed “amid tears’ for teaching 
“a blending” (cvyxpacis) and a confusion (avyxvaets) 
of the Godhead and Manhood after the Incarnation? 

1. Dict. Chr. Biog., art. ‘ Theodoret’, vol. Iv., p. 906 4. Letter 


of Theodoret to Leo, Z. L11. in collection of Leo the Great’s Letters. 
2 Harnack, History of Dogma, vol. IV., p. 200, 


Theodoret, 
bishop of Cyrus. 


CH. XVII] § EUTYCHES CONDEMNED. 471 


A commission was appointed by the Emperor to 
investigate the proceedings of the synod, which Eutyches 
declared had been falsely reported; but apparently 
there was nothing in the charge, so the acts were 
confirmed. Dioscorus declined to acknowledge the 
legality of the synod, and entered into communion 
with Eutyches. At this juncture, on May 30, 449, 
Theodosius II. and the Western Emperor Valentinian III, 
his kinsman, ordered a general council to assemble at 
Ephesus to decide the dispute; for, as usual, both sides 
had placed their case before Leo I., the Roman pontiff, 
the most remarkable man who had hitherto filled that 
great position. Leo on this occasion took a step 
opposed to the general practice of the Roman see. In 
a letter to Flavian he pronounced judgment on an 
intricate theological question, giving the reasons for his 
decision. “) : 7 

eo’s Tome, as it is usually called, is 
The Tome of Leo. she Western doctrine of the Two Natures. 
It is based on Tertullian’s treatise against Praxeas, and 
embodies phrases of Ambrose and Augustine. ‘The 
Eutychian or Monophysite view is that before the 
Incarnation there were Two Natures; but that, when 
Christ assumed humanity, but One Nature, the Divine, 
was the result. The Tome adheres to the Western 
formula, ‘Two Natures in One Person.’' Leo declared 
that a council was not needed, as the question had been 
decided. 
Parca: A council, however, assembled at 
* a) 449... Ephesus in August, 449. Dioscorus pre- 
sided, supported by the imperial police and 
by the still more formidable monks of Barsumas. 
Eutyches was acquitted, and Flavian and his supporters 
deposed. It is said that Flavian died of the rough 
treatment he received. Even Domnus of Antioch, though 
he had supported Dioscorus during the early sessions of 
the council, was condemned. ‘Theodoret and Ibas* were 

1. The word Zome, réuos, means a concise statement, and is applied 
to synodical letters. An excellent summary is given by Dr. Bethune- 
Baker, /ntvoduction, p. 288. For a severe criticism, see Harnack, Ast. 
of Dogma, vol. IV., pp. 202 ff. See also znfra, Chap. XIX., pp. 531—2. 


2. Ibas, bishop of Edessa, was the friend and supporter of Theodoret 
and the great opponent of the party of Cyril in the East. 


472 THE ROBBER SYNOD. (CH. XVII. 


deprived of their sees and excommunicated. It was a 
complete victory for Alexandria. ‘The decision of Rome 
had been set aside by a general council, and the Church 
of Athanasius had again defined the faith of the world. 
Leo indignantly declared that the assembly at Ephesus 
was not a council, but a Latrvocinium (a gathering of 
robbers), and by this name it is generally known.} 
Strong in the decision of the council and the support of 
the Emperor, Dioscorus raised the power of the Egyptian 
see to its zenith. In vain the imperial family of the 
West protested: Theodosius II. refused to listen to his 
relatives. The sole hope of the anti-Alexandrian party 
lay in Pulcheria, who had been kept from the Court by 
the influence of the minister, Chrysaphius. 

But on July 28, 450, Theodosius died, 
and the whole situation was changed. 
Pulcheria became Empress, and im- 
mediately made her position stronger by espousing 
Marcian. The new sovereigns were not disposed to 
submit to the dictation of Dioscorus, nor to have their 
dominions ruled spiritually from Alexandria. Con- 
stantinople must be reinstated as the first see in the 
East; and as this could only be done with the aid 
of Rome, Leo’s star was again in the ascendant. 

Marcian and Pulcheria decided to call 

2 Cees, 2 council at Nicaea; and to this decision — 
A.p.451.' Leo, though, like all popes, he dreaded 
the possible results of such an assembly, 

and would have preferred to have the matter settled 
by a synod in Italy, had perforce to agree. The Pope 
resolved not to attend in person, but to send four legates 
with precise instructions to see that nothing was done 
to the detriment of the Apostolic See. As the legates 
insisted on the presence of Marcian at the Council, 
the meeting of the bishops was, at the last moment, 


Pulcheria 
and Marcian. 


1. Leo, Eps. 448 1, 45 § 2, 95§ 2 (ad Pulcheriam : it is in this letter 
that the word Latrocintum occurs), 85§1. The character of this council 
is much disputed: most writers naturally condemn it; but Harnack 
considers that the proceedings were at least as dignified as those of the 
orthodox Council of Chalcedon. (History of Dogma, IV., p. 210.) See 
Martin, Le Brigandage a’ Ephéese, and Perry, Second Council of Ephesus, 
Even allowing for exaggeration the proceedings were sufficiently disgraceful. 
Bethune-Baker, J¢troduction, p. 284. Gore, Leo the Great, pp. 74 ff. 


CH. xvi.) ©§ DIOSCORUS DEPOSED. 473 


ordered to take place at Chalcedon. The proceedings 
were opened on October 8, 451, under the presidency 
of Paschasinus, bishop of Lilybaeum, the papal legate, 
and Anatolius, bishop of Constantinople. 

The Council of Chalcedon was the largest which 
had hitherto assembled, five hundred and twenty bishops 
having been present. Dioscorus seems to have shewn 
himself firm and dignified; but his condemnation was 
a foregone conclusion. The Tome of Leo was accepted 
with acclamation. The one difficulty was the restora- 
tion of Theodoret and Ibas. ‘The appearance of the 
former was the occasion of a furious scene, the factions 
of “the most reverend the bishops”’, as they are called, 
trying to howl one another down with great vigour. 
Marcian was greeted as the new Constantine, the 
new Paul, the new David: Pulcheria as the new 
Helena. As at the Latvocinium, the great question 
of the Two Natures seems to have been settled by 
clamour.? 

In effect the Chalcedonian definition of the relation 
of the Godhead and Manhood of Christ was a com- 
promise between Nestorianism and the Monophysite 
teaching of Eutyches. Nestorianism kept the Godhead 
distinct from the Manhood in the Person of Christ. 
Eutychianism fused them into a single Nature. The 
Council decided that Jesus Christ was ‘“consubstantial 
with the Father as touching His Godhead, and con- 
substantial with us as touching His Manhood”, and 
that He must be acknowledged in Two Natures “ with- 
out confusion, without change, without division, with- 
out separation” (é€v dvo ducecw dovyyitas, aTpéT TOS, 
adtaipeTas, aywpictws yvwptfouevov) ; the difference of 
the Natures being in no way destroyed on account 
of the union, but rather the peculiar property of each 
Nature being preserved and concurring in one Person 
and one hypostasis.° 


1. Or, counting those that were absent, but voted through their 
metropolitans, six hundred and thirty. 
2. Stanley, Zastern Church, Lect. I. 
Bright, Canons of the First Four General Councils, p. xxxv. 
Bethune-Baker, of. cz¢., p. 287. Hooker, Ecclestastical Polity, Book v., 


cap. 54, § 10. 


474 ALEXANDRIA DISSATISFIED.  [cH. xvIII. 


The Chalcedonian definition was a 
peri Y P Roman formula forced on the Oriental 
Chaleedon, Church by imperial authority. As such 
it could not be universally acceptable, 
the fact being that the East was at heart unanimous 
in favour of the doctrine of St. Cyril. The interest 
of the Greeks in Christianity was, as we have said, at 
this time mainly theological: to them Christ was the 
Word of God revealing the Father.’ In the controversy 
the Alexandrians were repelled by Nestorianism because 
it seemed to deny that the ‘Word was made Flesh’, 
while the Antiochians felt that the Cyrillan teaching 
implied that ‘God suffered’. In the West the important 
aspect of Christianity was its soteriology. The con- 
troversy on Pelagianism, the only one that interested 
the West, turned on the means whereby man was saved. 
Leo’s explanation of the Two Natures satisfies the need 
of the Latins for a Saviour who is God and man. But 
it could not be expected to close the question for the 
subtle-minded Greeks. So great a controversy was not 
to be silenced by a single council; and it continued 
in various forms for at least two centuries. 

The exercise of the imperial authority at Chalcedon 
made Constantinople the chief see in the East, and 
placed the supreme ecclesiastical authority in the hands 
of the Emperor. Alexandria, on the other hand, lost 
her importance. Only a small minority accepted the 
formula of the council, the majority adhered to Dioscorus 
and remained Monophysite. The great city was no 
longer attached to the Empire by sentiment ; and when 
the Mohammedan invasion came it submitted to the 
Muslims at once. The loss of Egypt to the Empire 
was one remote result of the Council of Chalcedon. 
To this day the Coptic Church is Monophysite. 

The three great controversies of the 

The Controversies first half of the fifth century, the Origen- 
Fifth dence istic, the Nestorian, and the Monophysite, 
are remarkably alike in the intellectual 

activity displayed, and in the passions they aroused. 
They all shewed a vitality lasting for generations: that 


I. Harnack, Atstory of Dogma, vol. IV., p. 155. 


CH. XvI1.] AN AGE OF INCONSISTENCIES, 475 


they were no mere logomachies is proved by the fact 
that in one form or another they seem to be reviving 
in our day. Despite the many difficulties he presents, 
Origen is perhaps the Christian writer who appeals 
most to modern ideas; and in recent controversies as 
to the Nature of our Lord we are perforce driven to 
seek what Cyril, Theodore, and Theodoret thought on 
the subject. 

But despite the intellectual activity of the fifth 
century, it is so unlike our own as to be almost in- 
comprehensible to us. After regarding with astonish- 
ment the acuteness of the mind of Cyril, the extent 
of the erudition of Theodoret, or the singular moderation 
of the historian Socrates, we are amazed to find a 
credulity worthy of a totally uncivilized age, and an 
unreasoning superstition hardly reconcilable with the 
thought that the men who were swayed by it could 
have been the products of an educated age. 

Equally remarkable are its moral inconsistencies. 
Of the reality of men’s piety there is no doubt. Chry- 
sostom and Theodoret, for example, were in many 
respects men of beautiful Christian character. Yet 
Chrysostom can assure his friend Olympias that she 
will find joy in heaven, the joy of seeing her enemies 
‘fast bound, tormented in flames, gnashing their teeth”, 
etc.,1 whilst Theodoret exults over the death of St. Cyril 
with what our age would perforce term indecent joy. 
Can we wonder then at the excesses attributed to violent 
and unscrupulous partisans in the fierce ecclesiastical 
conflicts which made the streets of the great cities of 
the Empire scenes of bloodshed? 

Yet the Church of Eastern Christen- 

Importance dom did a work of which we of the West 
Cen ease have reaped the benefit; nor were we 
capable of performing it. It needed the 


_ acute Greek brain, trained by centuries of metaphysical 


thought, to express the meaning of that which Occi- 
dentals can feel, but cannot put into words. The Greek 
Fathers thought out for us the problem raised by Arius, 
and the still more complex one concerning the Two 


‘: Stephens, Life of St. Chrysostom, p. 372. 


476 MODERN NEEDS. (CH. XVII 


Natures; and we now are turning from the great men 
whose writings made the Christianity of the Middle 
Ages and of the Reformation, from St. Augustine and 
St. Thomas Aquinas, from Luther and Calvin, to the 
Greek thinkers, St. Athanasius, St. Gregory of Nyssa, 
and St. Cyril, to help the religious difficulties of a 
scientific age. 


SUPPLEMENTARY NoTE ON THE CHRISTOLOGICAL 
CONTROVERSY AND MopDERN THOUGHT. 


ONE of the strongest modern objections to the doctrinal (not 
the historical) aspect of the Virgin Birth of our Lord is that, 
if our Lord’s Birth was unnatural (ze. different from that of other 
men) He was not a real man. Thus the doctrine taught by 
St. Cyril, that the flesh of Christ was transformed by the indwelling 
of the Logos into something supernatural, capable of producing 
Divine life in the Sacraments, has been declared to be destructive 
ot the doctrine of the Incarnation and really to tend in the 
direction of Docetism. (/zdbert Fournal, October, 1903.) 

But a more practical difficulty is raised by the teaching that 


Christ is drperros, z.€. incapable of change, and not possessed — 


of any freedom of will or choice of good and evil. St. Cyril, 
we are told, like Apollinarius, regarded with the deepest abhor- 
rence the thought that Christ possessed a free will. (Harnack, 
History of Dogma, vol. 1V., p. 179, #ote.) In this case, however, 
the fact of our Lord’s sinlessness seems to lose its value, at any 
rate to the men of our day. I venture to suggest that this insist- 
ence on the unchangeable nature of our Lord was caused (a) by 
the Arian doctrine that the Logos was zpemrés, and (4) by the 
indifference on the part of the Alexandrian teachers to the human 
element in the Gospel story. (a) If the Logos of God were, as 
the Arians maintained, a creature called into being before Time 
in order that God might create the Universe, then He might 
be, like Satan, able to choose between good and evil, and have 
been accepted as Son of God because He chose the good. To 
acknowledge therefore that our Lord was capable of sin would 
have been to admit that He was zperrés, and consequently to 


. 
a 
a 
§ 
B. 
3 
a 

‘ 


CH. xvi.] © SUPPLEMENTARY NOTE, 477 


have conceded the whole of the Arian position. To have main- 
tained, on the other hand, that our Lord as the Word of God was 
unchangeable, but that He could have sinned in His human 
manifestation, seemed to justify the view of Apollinarius, that 
those who give a human soul (z.e. one capable of temptation) 
to our Lord really acknowledge a ¢etrad instead of a Trinity 
in the Godhead. (4) But Harnack truly says of the teaching 
of Apollinarius, that “estimated by the presuppositions and aims 
of the Greek conception of Christianity it is complete” (Azsz. of 
Dogma, vol. 1V., p. 155); further on (p. 161) he remarks, “ None 
of the religious thought at that time led to the idea of a ‘ perfect 
man’ with free will”; and on p. 175 he says of St. Cyril, 
‘‘ Faith does not in his case start from the historical Christ, 
but from the Qeds Aédyos, and is occupied only with Him.” It 
was, in fact, mainly due to the School of Antioch that the Christ- 
ology of the Church ‘‘did not entirely become the development 
of an idea of Christ which swallowed up the historical Christ”, 
(20., p. 171.) 

This being the case, it is not surprising that the modern 
desire for the historic Jesus of the Gospels finds the attitude of 
St. Cyril and many of his contemporaries difficult to understand. 
But it must not be supposed that the question of the reality of 
our Lord’s temptation was completely disregarded. Gregory of 
Nyssa discusses the sinlessness of Christ in his Antirrheticus 
adv. Apollinarium, contra Eunomium, and his £fist. ad 
Eustathtum. He dwells on (a) the reality of our Lord’s 
Humanity, and (4) the completeness of the Union of the Two 
Natures in Christ. He fully admits those passages in the New 
Testament which refer to our Lord’s human will, human 
ignorance, growth in knowledge, submission to temptation, 
shrinking from death, as proofs that our Lord underwent a 
human development. But at the same time he draws a dis- 
tinction between the dé natural to humanity and the rdén 
which result from sin, Christ shared in the former, but not in the 
latter. This participation in the weaknesses of human nature 
involved the possibility of temptation. Thus in the story of 
Gethsemane he distinguishes the two wills—the human will which 
shrank from death and the Divine will which enabled Him to 
endure. This language is not really affected by the almost 
Monophysite terms in which Gregory speaks elsewhere of the 


478 SUPPLEMENTARY NOTE. _[cu. xvii. 


union of the Divine and Human natures. When Gregory speaks of 
the human nature being absorbed in the Divine, he is really thinking 
of the condition of our Lord’s Humanity after the Ascension. His 
language on the whole lends no countenance to the view that his 
conception of our Lord’s Humanity was Docetic. (Ottley, Jmcarna- 
tion, p. 60, a. 4.) The emphasis on the reality of our Lord’s 
human development received a new impulse from Theodore and 
the Antiochene theologians, 

[I owe these ideas to the Rev. J. H. Srawley, D.D., who has 
kindly allowed me the use of notes he has made. For the argu- 
ments in Athanasius contra Apollinarium, see Bethune-Baker, 
Introduction to Early History of Christian Doctrine, p. 252.) 


I believe no better summary of the Christological controversy 
can be found than the following :— 

*‘It is easy on the one hand to regard our Lord as mere 
man, differing in no essential particular from Moses, or Socrates, 
or Confucius. It is easy, on the other hand, to regard Him 
as possessing a divine mind in a human body, and therefore 
entirely free from human infirmities, incapable of doubt, ignor- 
ance, and temptation. It is difficult to accept the Scriptural 
view that He possessed a human mind with its essential 
limitations united with the fulness of the Godhead. This 
paradox, this dualism, transcends human thought, but satisfies 
human need. We maintain it as a mystery not to be measured 
by human intelligence, but necessary for human salvation.”— 
Dr. A. Wright, Preface to Synopsis of the Gospels in Greek, 
Pp. VL 


CHAPTER XIX. 


THE WESTERN CHURCH. 


Boh ik ietas As the philosophical genius of Greek 
Christianity, Christianity was in the fifth century 
devoted to the study of doctrines and the 
formation of the orthodox dogmas of the Church, so 
the Latin aptitude for organization and government 
was directed to the erection of a system of belief and 
practice destined to survive the destruction of the 
Romanempire. As the Imperial rule of Rome crumbled 
away, as province after province was lost to civilization, 
the fabric of the Catholic Church rose on firm founda- 
tions, majestic amid the surrounding ruin of the ancient 
world. In all history nothing is more remarkable than 
the way in which Latin Christianity fought and over- 
came the barbarism which engulfed the Empire. 

From the death of Theodosius the Great (A.D. 395) 
to the deposition of Romulus Augustulus (A.p. 476) the 
Roman dominion, in Britain, Gaul, Spain, Africa, and 
Italy, vanished like the snow at the approach of spring. 
As long as Theodosius lived, the frontiers of the 
provinces of Western Europe and Northern Africa 
remained practically unchanged. But within seventy 
years all had become merged in barbarian kingdoms. 
The terrible invasion of the Huns drove the Teutonic 
nations in increasing numbers over the boundaries of 
the Empire, the enfeebled population of which was 
powerless to resist the onslaught. The partition of his 
dominions by Theodosius between his sons Arcadius 
and Honorius was fatal, at least to Western Europe. 
Though nominally the Empire continued to be one, it 
was in reality divided into two sections, alien from one 


480 THE FATHERS OF THE WEST. __ [cu. xix. 


another in language, sympathy, and genius. We have 
consequently reached the period at which Latin Chris- 
tianity begins to become distinct from Greek. 

Latin Christianity owes its chief strength to the 
scholarly labours of St. Jerome, the teaching of St. 
Augustine, and the administrative genius of the bishops 
of Rome from Damasus to Leo the Great. As, however, 
the period before us is too crowded with events to be 
studied briefly, it is necessary to restrict ourselves to 
these heads. 

Jerome (Hieronymus) is a character 

(pcre ni. ), difficult to understand unless studied with 

a certain sympathy. If we regard him as 

a great saint and read his life from the standpoint of 
the hagiologist, we shall be pained and shocked at 
the spirit displayed by him in many of his works. 
But if we begin by not taking him too seriously, and 
think of him as an exceedingly eccentric scholar with a 
passion for quarreling with everyone with whom he 
came in contact and a remarkable power of expressing 
his opinion in the language of vigorous invective, we 
shall perhaps end by acknowledging that in an age of 
great men St. Jerome deservedly occupies a high place. 
The facts of his life are briefly these. He was a native 
of Stridon in Pannonia, his parents being in easy but 


not opulent circumstances. He was born about the 


middle of the fourth century, and received an excellent 
classical education. He was at school when the death 
of Julian the Apostate (a.p. 363) was announced. {[n 
company with his friend and foster-brother, Bonosus, 
Jerome went to Rome, where he studied under Aelius 
Donatus, the famous grammarian, and, as was customary, 
frequented the law courts to hear the best pleaders. 
But he must soon have felt the attraction of Christianity, 
for he says he was accustomed to visit the tombs of 
the martyrs in the Catacombs.! He was baptized before 
A.D. 366, and shortly afterwards visited Gaul, finally, 
in A.D. 370, settling at Aquileia in the neighbourhood 
of his home. Here Jerome lived in the society of several 
friends, among whom was Rufinus, his bitter enemy in 


1. Commentary on Ezekiel, XL. 5. 


_ 


CH. XIX.] _JEROME’S WANDERINGS. 48% 


later life. All were alike devoted to the study of the 
sacred Scriptures and to ascetic practices, under the 
guidance of Evagrius, afterwards one of the rival bishops 
of the divided Church of Antioch. But at the end of three 
years Jerome had made so many enemies that he had 
to retire from the neighbourhood, and the pious coterie 
of scholars broke up. The ‘Consular’ of the province, 
possibly no less a person than the famous St. Ambrose, 
who became bishop of Milan in 374, may have hastened 
Jerome’s departure. It is even conceivable that Jerome 
describes him as a bloodthirsty tyrant, but this phrase 
occurs in a very bombastic account of a miracle.} 
Jerome’s next home was Antioch, 
Jerome at _~whither he travelled with Evagrius and 
some friends. Here he fell ill and was 
supposed to be dying. In a trance he believed 
himself to be carried before the throne of God, and 
condemned as being “not a Christian but a Ciceronian.’”? 
The saints around the throne interceded for him, but 
he was beaten with many stripes before being permitted 
to return to earth. He made a vow never to study the 
Classics again; but it must be admitted that, though 
from henceforth his time was devoted to sacred studies, 
he interpreted the obligation in regard to the vow 
somewhat liberally. ‘ 

On his recovery Jerome became a 
eee monk:in: the desert of Chalcis, and in a 
letter written ten years later he describes his austerities 
at this time. He speaks of his skin becoming “ black 
as an Ethiopian’s”’, of his sleepless nights, of his bones 
which scarce clung together, of his companionship with 
wild beasts and scorpions. He did not, however, 


1. Dict. Chr. Biog., art. ‘Hieronymus’ by Dean Fremantle. 
Jerome’s first letter to his friend Innocentius describes in very inflated 
language a miraculous deliverance of a woman accused of adultery who 
professed her innocence. The ‘Consular’ is represented in the light of a 
heathen persecutor, raging ‘‘like a wild beast” and threatening the 
executioner with punishment if he did not extort a confession from the 
woman by torture. If the Consular was St. Ambrose, it was before his 
baptism ; but the whole conduct of the judge is described in such a way 
as to give a rhetorical efiect to Jerome’s description. Ambrose is praised 
by Jerome, 2%. XLvIii. 

2. Ad Eustochium, Ep. XX11. 30. 

Be detde, KKIT. Fe 


HH 


482 LITERARY ACTIVITY. (CH. XIX. 


neglect his literary labours; but wrote many letters, 
composed a Life of Paul the Hermit, and began the 
study of Hebrew.’ Jerome, moreover, was never too 
busy to quarrel with his neighbours, and in a.p. 379 the 
ill-will of the monks drove him back again to Antioch. 

At Antioch, much against his will, he 
received ordination to the priesthood at 
the hands of Paulinus, one of the three rival bishops of 
that city. Jerome, however, never seems to have acted 
as a presbyter, and at a later time, when a priest was 
required for the performance of divine service at Beth- 
lehem, he procured the ordination of his brother, 
Paulinian. 


Ordination. 


The year 380 found Jerome at Con- 
Jeromeand —_ stantinople as a disciple of St. Gregory 
regory of . 
Nazianzus. Of Nazianzus, devoted to the study of 
Greek literature, especially to the works 
of Origen, for whom he had at this time a great 
admiration. He translated and brought up to date the 
Chronicle of Eusebius, and at this period of his career 
he seems to have begun to realise the imperfections of 
the various versions of Scripture current in his day. 
By the spring of 382 Jerome was once 
more in Rome, where he found an ap- 
preciative patron in Pope Damasus, himself an anti- 
quarian and friend of scholars.? At the instigation of the 
Pope he set himself first to prepare a revision of the 
Psalter, and then to collate the numerous Latin versions 
of the New Testament. He also began to make a special 
study of the Old Testament by collating the LXX and 
the version of Aquila with the original Hebrew. He 
was at this time a zealous supporter of Origen in 
opposition to the views generally held by the Roman 
clergy. 
At Rome Jerome exerted great influence over the 
noble ladies of the capital. The house of Paula, 
to which he was introduced by his friend, bishop 


Jerome at Rome. 


1, Zp. x. The Life of Paulus the Ascetic was dedicated to the 
centenarian Paulus of Concordia. 

2. Ep.CXXvII. 7. Jerome went to Rome inthe company of Paulinus, 
the bishop of Antioch acknowledged by the Pope, and Epiphanius, bishop 
of Salamis in Cyprus. 


CH. X1X.] PAULA AND HER DAUGHTERS, 483 


Epiphanius, became the centre of a great ascetic move- 
ment. Paula had three daughters—Blesilla, Julia 
Eustochium, and Paulina; and all four ladies placed 
themselves in Jerome’s hands to be instructed. These 
and several female members of the most ancient patrician 
houses eagerly listened to his exhortations, and by his 
persuasion renounced the world, in order to give them- 
selves up to the study of the Scriptures in both Hebrew 
and Greek, to works of charity, and to severe ascetic 
observances. Julia Eustochium became a _ professed 
virgin, and Jerome addressed to her his twenty-second 
epistle, ‘On the Preservation of Virginity.’ 
This letter is remarkable for its ex- 
Jerome's Uetterto aegerated praise of the virgin life; the 
only good marriage could do, in Jerome’s 
opinion, was to cause more who might take the vows 
of celibacy to be born into the world.’ It contains a 
most interesting description of Jerome’s early experiences, 
and a furious attack on the Roman clergy, who, with 
the great ladies of the capital, are mercilessly satirised. 
Here is a scene that he gives us in the house of a 
noble lady :— 

The descendant of the Decii or Maximi is in the 
grief of early widowhood; with rouged cheeks she 
reclines upon a luxurious couch, the Gospels bound in 
purple and gold in her hand. Her room is filled with 
parasites, who entertain the lady with scandal concerning 
worldly and spiritual things; but she is especially proud 
of being the patroness of priests. Clergy enter to pay 
the noble matron a visit, kiss her on the head, and with 
outstretched hands receive her gracious alms. If they 
pocket her bounty with, perhaps, a certain polite bash- 
fulness, the monk, who, barefoot and in a black and 
dirty habit, is dismissed by the servants on the threshold, 
shews no such hesitation. But see, the motley eunuchs 

1. Soa mother who devotes her daughter to virginity becomes God’s 
mother-in-law (socrus Dei), #~. xx1I. 20. The letter to Eustochium is 
altogether a strange production, considering it was addressed by a grave 
ascetic to a girl of seventeen. So is ZP. CviI. to Laeta, on the training of 
her little daughter Paula who was destined to be a nun. There is, however, 
in the latter letter more good sense and good feeling than Mr. Glover in 
his criticism on it (ZLzfe and Letters in the Fourth Century, p. 178) gives 
credit for. 

HH 2 


434 A CLERICAL FOP, | (CH. xIx. 


are flinging wide open the doors for the deacon, who 
drives up in a fashionable carriage with such fiery horses 
that one might suppose him to be the brother of the 
king of Thrace! His silken garments breathe of per- 
fumed waters, his hair is curled by the barber with 
the highest skill, and with jewelled fingers foppishly 
raising his dress he skips into the palace, his dainty 
feet clad by the skill of the shoemaker in shoes of the 
softest and glossiest morocco leather. Anyone seeing 
this man would take him for a bridegroom rather than 
a clergyman. He is known through the whole town 
under the nickname of ‘Town Coachman’, and the 
street boys call after him ‘Pipizo’ or ‘Geranopepa’. 
“ Uevedarius urbis . . et altilis yepavotrimmns, uulgo pipizo 
nominatuy.” He is everywhere and nowhere to be met 
with; nothing happens which he is not the first to 
know, and there is no gossip of the town which he has 
not discovered or magnified. His career is in short 
this: He has become a priest in order to have freer 
access to beautiful women; his way of life is briefly 
as follows: he rises early, and having planned the 
visits of the day sets forth on his wanderings. Where 
he finds anything beautiful in a house, be it a cushion 
or a fine cloth, or any kind of furniture, he persistently 
admires it until it is presented to him, for the sharp 
tongue of the ‘Town Coachman’ is feared by all 
women.! 
5 This bitterly sarcastic description of 
unpopularity, Christian Rome matches well with Am- 
mianus’ picture of patrician society a few 
years earlier; but the clergy naturally detested so 
merciless a satirist of their habits as Jerome; although 
in the earlier days of his sojourn at Rome, as he himself 
informs us, many had deemed him to be the proper 
successor to Damasus.?, But in a few years his enemies 


1. The above is taken from Gregorovius, Rome tn the Middle Ages, 
vol. 1., p. 143, Eng. Tr. It is a summary of the letter to Eustochium, £/. 
XXII. 28. For a discussion of the language of Jerome see Dill, Roman 
Society in the Last Century of the Western Empire, pp. 135 ff. 

2. Ep. XLV. 3, Ad Asellam. ** Totius in me urbis studia consonabant, 


omnium paene judicio dignus summo sacerdotio judicabar. Damasus meus 
sermo erat.” 


CH. XIX.] _ JEROME LEAVES ROME. 485 


had become at least as numerous as his friends; 
and when Paula’s daughter Blesilla, a young widow, 
died of the austerities recommended to her by Jerome, 
a riot occurred at the funeral. The cry ‘‘The monks 
to the Tiber!” was raised.1 No advice could induce 
the saint to modify his language on this occasion; he 
treated his opponents with torrents of abuse; and, 
finding Rome no place for him, retired, accompanied 
by Paula and Eustochium, to the Holy Land. 
Abe Followed by a train of devout and 
Jerusalem, Honourable women, the saint proceeded 
to Jerusalem (a.p. 385), and found on his 
arrival that the proconsul had prepared to receive 
such distinguished visitors in state. But the pilgrims 
contented themselves with visiting the holy places, and 
withdrew to Alexandria, where Jerome, though already 
grey-haired, became the disciple of Didymus the Blind, 
the famous Origenist teacher. This was the third 
master to whom Jerome had attached himself, Apollin- 
arius and Gregory of Nazianzus being the others. He 
had thus sat at the feet of the greatest theologians in 
the world at the close of the fourth century. Jerome 
was remarkably devoted to those who taught him, and 
his humility as a scholar contrasts strongly with the 
truculent arrogance he displayed in controversy with 
his contemporaries. 
In the year 386, Jerome, Paula and 
Jerome settles ab Fustochium had established themselves at 
Bethlehem. A monastery was built, over 
which Jerome presided, whilst Paula ruled the neigh- 
bouring nunnery. A large library was collected for 
Jerome’s use; and his time was occupied in expounding 
the Scriptures, and, despite the vow he had made in 
A.D. 374, in teaching some youths the Classics. At this 
period he commenced the great work of his life, the trans- 
lation of the Hebrew Bible into Latin, a task which 
needed no small moral courage to undertake. The 
1. Zp. XXXIX. 5. Jerome reminds Paula that her grief for Blesilla 
contrasts unfavourably with the holy Melania, who thanked God when 
she lost her husband and two sons, because she could now serve Him 
with less distraction. Later on this holy lady’s name attested the 


darkness of her perfidy (Zf. CXXXIII. 3); but then she sided with 
Rufinus ! 


486 SCRIPTURAL STUDY. (CH. XIX. 


LXX., the sacred version of the Church, had for 
centuries held its own against allrivals. It was received 
as an inspired translation, the result of a miracle. In 
addition to this it was necessary for Jerome to perfect 
his knowledge of Hebrew by studying with a Jew, by 
name Bar-Anina, who came to him by night.! 

For years Jerome prepared for his task, but all the 
time a stream of literature issued from his cell. Com- 
mentaries on various books of Scripture, a fresh revision 
of the New Testament, ascetical treatises, a work on 
the place-names of Palestine, a catalogue of all famous 
ecclesiastical personages since the days of the Apostles, 
translations of Didymus’ works on Origen and of some 
of Origen’s commentaries, with innumerable letters, bear 
witness to his ceaseless activity. By a.p. 404 his trans- 
lation of the Hebrew Bible into Latin was finished. 

In later times this version, with 
The Vulgate. Jerome’s revised New Testament and the 
Psalter which he had corrected for the Church of Gaul, 
was styled the Vulgate, and was finally accepted by the 
Council of Trent (A.D. 1545—1563) as authoritative in 
the Roman Catholic Church. Jerome had worked amid 
a storm of disapproval; even Augustine considered it 
unwise for him to alter the words of Scripture to which 
people had been long accustomed. Soconservative were 
the Christians in Africa, and, we may add, so familiar 
with the language of the Bible, that, when a bishop 
reading the story of Jonah changed the word cucurbita 
(a gourd) into hederu (ivy), the congregation protested 
and would not allow the Lesson to proceed till the word 
they were accustomed to was adopted.? In all his 
labours Jerome sought the advice of Paula and Eusto- 
chium; for he was not inclined to depreciate a woman’s 
intellect, and made those who submitted to his guidance 
take an interest in his deepest studies. 
pep aay The arduous labours of Jerome did 
Mitre or not prevent him from engaging in some 
bitter quarrels. He was roused to fury 
by hearing, about a.p. 393, that a certain monk named 


1. Fp. LXXXxIv. ‘‘By his fear of the Jews” says Jerome “ Bar- 
Anina presented to me in his own person a second Nicodemus.” 
2. Hieron., £f. cClv. Augustinus, Zf, LVI. 


CH. XIX] | VINDICATION OF CELIBACY. 487 


Jovinian had presumed to question the supreme merit of 
a celibate life. 

A few years later a Spaniard, named Vigilantius, 
who had stayed at Jerome’s monastery at Bethlehem, 
provoked his ire, partly on account of the part he took in 
the Origenist controversy, but chiefly because he declared 
that the honour paid to the martyrs was excessive, that 
the hermit life was cowardice, that money collected “ for 
the poor saints at Jerusalem” had better be kept at 
home, and that presbyters ought to be married before 
they were ordained. 

Jerome does not condescend to argue with those 
who presume to oppose the views of his age. So com- 
pletely had the ascetic ideal possessed men, that those 
who doubted whether after all it was an original part 
of Christianity were met with horror and contempt. 
But even Jerome’s friends questioned the propriety of 
the violent language of his treatise against Jovinian, 
which he had published before asking their opinion.’ 
When Jovinian died, he wrote of him “ This man, after 
having been condemned by the authority of the Roman 
Church, amidst his feasts of pheasants and of swine’s 
flesh, I will not say gave up, but belched forth his 
life”’ (non tam emisit animam quam eructauit). He calls 
Vigilantius Dormitantius, and hopes he may find pardon 
when, as Origen teaches, the devil is forgiven.? 

tie tye As we have already seen, Jerome had 

Minuten in early life been a careful student of the 
writings of Origen, and at Rome he had 

vigorously abused those clergy who had disputed the 
orthodoxy of the great Egyptian teacher.’ But about 
A.D. 393 a man named Aterbius accused Jerome and 
Rufinus of Origenism; and when Epiphanius, bishop 
of Salamis, arrived in Palestine, he interfered in the 


1. Epp. XLVI. and xLix., Ad Pammachium. Ep. L., Ad 
Domnionem. 

2. Adv. Vigilantium, Cc. 2, written A.D. 409. Jerome is particularly 
hard on the style of both Jovinian and Vigilantius, He gives specimens 
of the turgid and inconsequent language of the former. Adv. Jovinianum, 
ii, 2. Milman, Ast. of Christianity, vol. 111., p. 235. 

Ep. xxxul,, Ad Paulam. See also Ep. LXxXIv., the letter to 
Pammachius and Oceanus, where Jerome compares his own admiration 
for Origen with St. Cyprian’s for Tertullian. 


488 EPIPHANIUS INTERFERES, (CH, XIX, 


dispute by advising Jerome to break off all communion 
with John, bishop of Jerusalem, as a fautor of the 
heresy ; and went so far as to ordain Jerome’s brother, 
Paulinian, a presbyter, in order that he might officiate 
in the monastic church at Bethlehem. Jerome was 
in a difficult position. As a man of letters he had 
studied under the most famous Origenist teachers of his 
time, and had further expressed the highest admiration 
for Origen, even for his epi “Apy@v, around which the 
present controversy was raging; and at Rome he had 
not spared the detractors of the master. It is but just, 
however, to admit that he had never been a blind 


partisan of Origen, and that he had always advocated 


discretion in studying his works. Yet he had taken 
Origen’s side and was deeply committed to it. John, 
the bishop of Jerusalem, was an Origenist, and so was 
Jerome’s old friend Rufinus, who had been estab- 
lished in a monastery on the Mount of Olives since 
A.DA1377! 
On the other hand, Jerome as a monk 
{parents regarded Epiphanius, who had known St. 
Antony, as the most saintly of men. He 
felt therefore compelled to support him in his quarrel 
with John, even at the cost of seeming false to his 
early opinions. For a time there was no communica- 
tion between the Church of Jerusalem and the monks 
of Bethlehem; but at length Jerome, by the good offices 
of Theophilus of Alexandria, was reconciled to John, 
who had been terrified into withholding support from 
his former Origenist friends. Jerome was thus fully 
committed to the Epiphanian party on the question of 
Origen’s orthodoxy. 
: Then began one of the most discredit- 
Quarrel with able personal quarrels recorded in eccle- 
siastical history. Jerome had parted with 
Rufinus in peace when the latter returned from the 
Holy Land to Rome in a.p. 397. They had been 
alienated from one another during the Origenist con- 
troversy, but on parting they received the sacrament 
together in the church of the Resurrection, and their 
life-long friendship appeared to be unbroken. But when 
Rufinus reached Rome and found the Origenistic dispute 


CH. XIX] RUFINUS OFFENDS JEROME. 489 


was exciting interest, he translated the epi “Apyov 
into Latin.’ In the preface he alluded to Jerome’s having 
translated many works of Origen.? This stung Jerome, 
who, finding that Origenism was out of favour in Italy, 
trembled for his own reputation for orthodoxy. Recrim- 
ination followed; harsh things were said on both sides, 
and the quarrel became a permanent one. Even in 
A.D. 410, when Rufinus died in Sicily, Jerome’s feelings 
were so bitter that he delighted in the opportunity of 
airing his classical knowledge in honour of the event. 
“The scorpion” he wrote “lies underground between 
Enceladus and Porphyrion, and the hydra of many 
heads has at last ceased to hiss against me.’ 

Jerome survived Rufinus ten years, dying in A.p. 
420. He took part in the Pelagian controversy, and 
corresponded amicably with St. Augustine, for whom 
in his later days he had a great admiration; their zeal 
against Pelagianism having united them after their 
failure to see eye to eye in the matter of Biblical 
exegesis. 

In character, it must be admitted, 
Jerome falls short of our idea of sanctity. 
He courted controversy, and was vin- 
dictive and implacable when engaged in it. In the 
Origenist disputes he is seen at his worst. His nervous 
solicitude for his reputation for orthodoxy made him 
put himself into the hands of a bigot like Epiphanius 
and an unscrupulous ecclesiastic like Theophilus. In 
the whole matter he shewed neither consistency nor 
generosity. His attack on his old friend Rufinus and 
his exultation at the fall of Chrysostom are serious 
blots on his memory. 

On the one hand we may not forget either his 
real zeal for what he believed to be the highest ideal 
of life, or his noble diligence as a scholar. Jerome at 


Character of 
Jerome. 


1. It is but just to say that Jerome in A.D. 399 wrote a friendly letter 
of remonstrance to Rufinus (Z/. LXXXI.), which however was not delivered 
owing to the treachery of Pammachius. Jerome considered the rendering 
of the epi ’Apxév into Latin most injudicious, as well as unfair to 
Origen, Zp. LXXXIV. 

2, Hieron., Zp. LXxx., Rufinus ad Macartum. 

. Augustine bitterly lamented the estrangement of, two such men 
as Jerome and Rufinus, £f. LXXIII. 


490 JEROME’S GREATNESS. [CH. XIX. 


least never played with religion. His figure in Rome, 
stern and unbending, compelled the great ladies of the 
most frivolous aristocracy of the world to recognise a 
nobler form of Christianity than that of the worldly 
priests of the capital and ‘the town coachman’. 
That he infused into those who were under the spell 
of his influence no mere sentimental piety, but a 
genuine love of sacred study, is a further reason for 
our appreciating his efforts. 
; But it is as the greatest of early 
scholar. -—sChhristian scholars that Jerome deserves 
a high place among the worthies of the 
Church. He had a reai enthusiasm for learning. Where- 
ever he went he sought out the best teachers, and shewed 
himself a humble and appreciative scholar. He laboured 
indefatigably, and kept clear of ecclesiastical office in 
order that he might pursue the work of his hfe without 
distraction; and his translation of the Bible has had an 
enduring influence, greater even than the heroic labours 
of Origen on the text of the Septuagint. Jerome was 
emphatically a man of his age; he shared in its pre- 
judices, in its credulity, in its harshness, as well as in 
its genuine devotion. But his natural genius left its 
impress on all that he did, and he became the typical 
monastic leader for many generations. He had the 
faults and the virtues of the cloister. But, narrow as 
were his views, abusive as his writings often are, coarse 
and unscrupulous as he shewed himself when thwarted 
or opposed, he always had devoted friends and admirers, 
some of whom deplored his extravagances, but admired 
his erudition, his industry, and his burning zeal. 
aiceoet a ak Inferior to Jerome in scholarship, St. 
A.D. 362-430, Augustine is in every other respect a 
greater man. He is, indeed, the most 
important figure in Church history since St. Paul, and 
his influence on Western Christendom still endures. 
Four great events in his long life are of special interest 
to us: (1) his conversion, with the story of his early 
opinions; (2) his conflict with Donatism, which throws 
light on his view of the Church; (3) the Pelagian heresy, 
revealing his opinion on the subject of grace and 
salvation; (4) the publication of the City of God. His 


——— i oe 


CH. xIX.} AUGUSTINE’S STORMY YOUTH. 491 


career closed in the troublous times of the Vandal 
invasion of Africa. 


(1) The Confessions is, perhaps, the 
most remarkable piece of self-revelation 
in literature. It gives, as honestly as is possible under 
the circumstances, an exact picture of Augustine’s life 
from his earliest childhood till his conversion in his 
thirty-second year. He tells us that his father, Patricius, 
was a poor burgess of Thagaste, who appears to have 
been a man of somewhat limited intelligence, though 
with sense enough to see that his son was a child of 
no ordinary ability, and to stint himself in order to 
give him the best education his means would afford.} 
Augustine confesses that he was an idle boy, fond of 
play and disliking the drudgery of studying a strange 
language like Greek.2 At Carthage he seems to have 
frequented the society of a set of disreputable students 
who called themselves ‘Wreckers’ (Euersorves), though 
he took no part in the outrages they committed.® It 
must be remembered that, though Augustine was not 
baptized, his mother, Monnica, was an earnest Christian, 
and he never felt really happy in the wild life he lived. 
The first serious thoughts, however, came to Augustine 
on reading the Hortensius, a work of Cicero which has 
not come down to us. The praise of philosophy in 
it changed the young man’s mind, he longed for the 
immortality of wisdom. “From henceforth began” he 
says ““my upward way.’ 

It is surprising that Augustine was 
pingostineand | attracted at first, not by the Church but 
y the Manichaeans. There was, how- 

ever, a fascination to a young and inexperienced man in 
a mystical sect, forbidden by law, yet maintaining a 


The Confessions, 


1. Confess. U. 3. He was sent to study at Carthage ‘‘ animositate 
magis quam opibus patris municipis Thagastensis admodum tenuis”. In 
Confess. 1X. 9, Augustine describes his father as ‘‘sicut beneuolentia 
praecipuus ita ira feruidus”. Cf. Horace, Sa¢. I. vi. 71. 

2. Confess.1. 14. ‘ Uidelicet difficultas, difficultas omnino ediscendae 
peregrinae linguae, quasi felle aspergebat omnes suauitates graecas fabulo- 
sarum narrationum.’ 

3. Confess. Il. 3. 

4. Confess. Ut.4. ‘*Surgere ceperam ut ad Te redirem.” The 
Confessions, be it remembered, are addressed to God. 


492 AUGUSTINE A MANICHAEAN. (CH. XIX. 


secret existence, instructing the elect only in what it styled 
‘the Truth’. Augustine tells us that the Names of the 
Holy Trinity were always on the lips of the Mani- 
chaeans, and that they were constantly talking about 
‘the Truth’, whilst their heart was void of truth! For 
nine years he continued to be a Manichaean, but it was 
evident that he was being gradually alienated from the 
sect. The physician Vindicianus, who as proconsul 
awarded Augustine a crown for a victory won in a 
theatrical competition, took an interest in him, and 
warned him against astrology. Serious thoughts were 
further aroused in him by the death of a friend who had 
been baptized when ill and unconscious, and when tem- 
porarily better had rebuked Augustine for jesting on the 
subject. His studies were also taking a more scientific 
form. He surprised himself by being able to understand 
the Categories of Aristotle without a master, and this is 
the first indication he gives of the natural bent of his 
genius for mathematical and scientific subjects. But he 
was still living an immoral life, and had taken a con- 
cubine; yet, although such alliances were not generally 
regarded as reprehensible, and he remained faithful to 
the object of his choice, his mind was not at rest. He 
was, in short, a man of the world, a brilliant professor 
of rhetoric, enjoying the society of men like himself. 
He describes the charm of such society: “ The talk, the | 
laughter, the courteous mutual deference, the common 
study of the masters of eloquence, the comradeship now 
grave now gay, the differences which left no sting, as of 
a man dissenting with himself, the spice of disagreement 
which seasoned the monotony of consent.’’® 


1. Confess. 111. 6. He speaks of ‘‘uiscum confectum commixtione 
Syllabarum nominis tui et Domini Iesus Christi et Paracleti Consolatoris 
nostri Spiritus Sancti.” Glover, Life and Letters in the fourth Century; 
Pp. 203. 

2. Confess. IV. 3. See also vit. 6. 

3- Confess. IV. 4. Glover, of. ctt., p. 204. 4. Confess. Iv. 16. 

5. Confess. IV. 2, Augustine speaks of the “‘pactum libidinosi amoris, 
ubi proles etiam contra votum nascitur, quamuis iam nata cogat se diligi”. 

6. Confess. Iv. 8. ‘‘ Alia erat quae in eis amplius capiebant animum, 
colloqui et corridere, et uicissim beneuole obsequi, simul legere libros 
dulciloquos, simul nugari et simul honestari, dissentire interdum sine 
odio, tanquam ipse homo secum, atque ipsa rarissima dissentione condire 
consensiones plurimas.” 


CH. XIX.] MEETING WITH FAUSTUS. 493 


At the age of twenty-nine Augustine was privileged 
to meet the celebrated Faustus, the Manichaean bishop. 
Whenever he had expressed any doubts, his friends had 
told him to wait for Faustus, who would explain all 
difficulties. He found in Faustus a thoroughly pleasant 
and eloquent man, whose lectures delighted him. But 
when he came to know the bishop, it was soon evident 
that he was entirely superficial. A little Tully and 
less Seneca were all that his learning comprised, and 
what success he had managed to secure was due to a 
ready wit. Augustine, however, discovered that Faustus 
was not unprepared to admit his ignorance, and con- 
ceived a certain admiration for his honesty in this 
respect.? 

A : After his interview with Faustus, 
toneasine2s@ Augustine left the Manichaean sect, and 

quitted his mother, against her will, in 
order that he might go to Rome as a teacher of rhetoric.* 
He confesses that at this time he was a materialist 
and could not understand how God was without a body 
of some sort.2 From Rome he went to Milan, and there 
St. Ambrose “‘ welcomed the stranger as a father”. But 
Augustine was not really intimate with the great bishop. 
He attended the church to listen to his sermons, at first 
as a critic, then as an enchanted hearer. He had a few 
brief interviews with him—no more. But he was 
greatly impressed by Ambrose’s allegorical interpreta- 
tions of the Old Testament, as he had found great 
difficulty in understanding the ancient Scriptures when 
taken literally. “I rejoiced,” he says, ‘ because I was 
able to read with other eyes those ancient Scriptures of 
the Law and the Prophets, which used to seem so 
absurd, while I was reproving the saints for thinking 
what they never thought.’’® 


1. Confess. v. 3,6, 7. ‘‘Iste uero cor habebat, et si non rectum ad 
Te, nec tamen nimis incautum ad se ipsum. Non usquequaque imperitus 
erat imperitiae suae.” 

2. Confess. v. 8. 

3. Confess. Vv. 10. 

4. Confess.v. 13. ‘* Suscepit me paterne ille homo Dei.” See also 
VI. 3. 

; Confess. V1. 4. ‘*Cum arguebam tanquam ita sentientes sanctos 
tuos ; uerum autem non ita sentiebant.” 


“494 ALYPIUS AND AUGUSTINE. (cH. xIx. 


In passing, Augustine relates a story 
of his friend and pupil Alypius, which 
helps us to understand the habits of the 
men of his age. When at Carthage, Alypius was a 
passionate frequenter of the circus. Augustine feared 
that his blind and reckless devotion to the sport would 
prove his ruin, but could not dissuade him because he 
was on bad terms with Alypius’ father. Alypius, how- 
ever, attended Augustine’s lectures, and a chance sarcasm 
in them against the pleasures of the circus made him 
decide to free himself from their fascination. 

At Rome, whither Alypius had preceded Augustine 
to study law, he was dragged by his friends into the 
circus, against his will. During the performance he 
kept his eyes shut till the excitement of the people 
provoked his curiosity. “Then” says Augustine “he 
was struck with a deadlier wound in the soul than 
the gladiator whom he lusted to behold received in 
the flesh.”* The mad passion for blood possessed him, 
and he not only gave way on this occasion to his delight 
at seeing bloodshed, but became again an Aaditué of the 
gladiatorial shows. It was not for some time that he 
was able to tear himself free of them. Alypius was at 
Milan with Augustine at the crisis of his life. 

A most interesting description of 
Augustine’s mental struggles follows the 
story of Alypius, in which we may notice 
two important stages in his conversion. He began to 
realise that the mystery of the origin of evil was to be 
solved by attributing it to the will; and by the study of 
the works of Plotinus he learned to understand how 
God could be incorporeal. At this time he was ready 
to acknowledge that Christ was a man of excellent 
wisdom, and that He merited the highest authority. 
The mystery of the Word made Flesh was to Augustine 
still incomprehensible. | 


Alypius and the 
arena, 


Augustine’s 
perplexities, 


1. Confess. Vi. 7 ff. 

2. “Confess. vi. 8. ‘*Et percussus est graviore uulnere in anima, 
quam ille in corpore, quem cernere concupiuit.” 

3. Confess. vit. 6 ff. This part of the Comfesstons, Harnack says, is 
the best account of Neoplatonism in the Fathers. Glover, Lz/e and Letlers, 
p. 21%. 


CH, X1X.] | “TOLLE, LEGE.” 495 


Visit to As we near the crisis, we see that to 
Simpliciauus, Augustine conversion meant the complete 
‘ eiary ot ; surrender of the will to God. He went 
moony renee to the aged Simplicianus, “the spiritual 
father of the bishop of Milan, whom Ambrose truly 
loved as a father.” When Simplicianus heard that 
Augustine had studied Platonism from the translations 
made by Victorinus, he related how this great Roman 
professor nad in his old age become a Christian and 
had openly confessed Christ, not privately, as was 
customary in the case of distinguished persons, but 
publicly on the platform from whence those about to 
be baptized proclaimed their faith? Deeply as this 
recital moved Augustine, he still wavered till a friend, 
Pontitianus, came to pay him and Alypius a visit. 
Pontitianus spoke of Antony, the founder of Egyptian 
monasticism, and of how the reading of his wonderful 
career had converted two of his friends. Augustine was 
deeply moved, he rushed into the garden. A child was 
calling out in a neighbouring house “ Tolle, lege; tolle, 
lege.” Augustine took up a volume of St. Paul’s 
Epistles. His eyes fell on the passage, “Not in rioting 
and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, 
not in strife and envying: but put ye on the Lord Jesus 
Christ, and make not provision for the flesh to fulfil the 
lusts thereof.”8 He abandoned his career, giving up his 
professorship after the vintage holidays, placed himself 
under the guidance of St. Ambrose, and, with his friend 
Alypius and his natural son Adeodatus, received the 
sacrament of baptism (April 25, a.p. 387). Shortly 
afterwards his mother, Monnica, whose life had been one 
long prayer for her son’s conversion, passed away. 


1. Confess. VIII. 1, 2. ‘‘ Perrexi ergo ad Simplicianum, patrem 
in accipienda gratia tua tunc episcopi Ambrosii, et quem uere ut patrem 
diligebat.” 

2. Confess. VIII. 2. 

3. Confess. VIII. 6—12. 

4. Augustine’s description of his mother—the patience and amiability 
she shewed to her somewhat violent husband, her loyalty to him in 
refusing to allude to the sorrows of her married life, and her zeal as a 
peace-maker—is one of the most interesting portions of the Confessions. It 
is followed by the account of his conversation with her on the Kingdom of 
Heaven when they were at Ostia, and of her last illness and death. 
Confess, IX. Q-~II. 


496 BISHOP OF HIPPO. (CH, XIX, 


The conversion of St. Augustine is one of the most 
important events in Christian history, since it gave to 
the Western Church the man whose wonderful person- 
ality, genius, and earnestness, practically moulded her 
destiny for more than a thousand years." 

The controversies in which Augustine was subse- 
quently engaged served to give to the opinions which he 
had formed at his conversion a more definite shape. 

‘ After his conversion and the death of 
return etstittiea, His mother, Monnica, Augustine went to 
his home at Thagaste, where he lived 
four years with his friends in a sort of religious com- 
munity. In a.p. 391 he yielded to the persuasion of 
the aged Valerius, bishop of Hippo, and was ordained 
priest; in 395 he became coadjutor bishop, and he 
ultimately succeeded Valerius in the see. Next to 
Carthage, Hippo Regius was the most important town 
in Africa: but Augustine’s influence extended far beyond 
his see or province, as he was soon recognised as the 
ablest and saintliest bishop of his time; and the authority 
of his words, at any rate in the Western Church, was 
everywhere acknowledged. This unquestioned ascend- 
ancy he maintained till his death in a.p. 430. 
sites (2) Augustine’s great work in Africa 
Doratismin was the suppression of the Donatist 
schism. He found the Catholic Church 
a depressed and unpopular body, suffering persecution at 
the hands of the Donatists, who, though proscribed by 
law, were still dominant in Northern Africa. : Donatism 
was the nonconformity of the ancient Church. Having 
in the first instance appealed to the State for support 
against their opponents, and having been proved in the 
wrong, the Donatists turned against the Catholic Church 
as a government institution, declaring themselves to be 
the only true Church in the world. They gloried in the 


1. ‘*He gave” says Mr. Glover (Life and Letters, p. 194) *‘to 
Christian thought on God and man, on sin and Grace, on the world and 
the Church, an impulse and a direction, the force of which is still unspent. 
He gave the great Popes the idea of the City of God... . He was the 
father of the mystics, the founder of the scholastic philosophy of the Middle 
Ages, and above all the hero and master of the Renaissance and the 
Reformation.” See also Harnack, Lecture om the ‘ Confessions’ af 
St. Augustine. 


CH. XIXx.] _ RISE OF DONATISM. 497 


fact that they had kept themselves clear of all commerce 
with the tvraditores of the Diocletian persecution, 
whereas the Church’s ordinations and sacraments had 
been vitiated by being administered by apostate bishops | 
and priests. 
er ae The policy of the Emperors in regard 
ani Donation tO the Donatists had been marked by 
vacillation. First Constantine attempted 
to put them down by force, then he tried a persuasive 
letter, finally he ignored them. His successor, Constans, 
hoped to bribe the sect into submission. But Donatus, 
when he saw the Emperor’s gold, cried ‘“‘ Quid imperatori 
cum ecclesia?” thus putting tersely the principles 
ype iclaaae adopted by this sect in regard to the 
tate. 

The cry was taken up by Donatists throughout 
Africa, and the duty of separation from the Church 
was proclaimed on every side. The Civcumcellions rose 
and committed fearful atrocities. Such were their 
excesses, that Donatus himself was compelled to call 
in the aid of the civil power. But Macarius, who was 
entrusted with the suppression of the revolt, made 
no distinction between Donatists and Circumcellions. 
Donatus was banished and the Catholics were left to 
enjoy their triumph.’ 

When Julian became emperor, the 
Successors = Donatists appealed to him and obtained 
leave to return to Africa; they at once 
took possession of the churches, and treated them as 
though profaned by the presence of the Catholics. 
They made all Catholics who joined them do penance, 
re-baptized the laity and re-ordained the clergy. 
Donatus died in exile, and Parmenian, one of the 
ablest of the party, succeeded him. As a foreigner, he 
was less prejudiced than the native Africans, and in 
his controversy with the Catholic champion, Optatus, 
bishop of Milevis, whom Augustine calls “a second 
Ambrose of Milan’”’, there are many points on which 
the disputants were agreed.” 

1. Vide supra, Chap. XII. 

2. Optatus’ work, de Schismate Donatistarum, despite some lapses 
into abusive language, is written in a conciliatory spirit. The author 

1! 


498 SYNOD OF HIPPO, | (CH. XIX. _ 


On the death of Parmenian, a.p. 392, 
Primian succeeded to the bishopric of 
Carthage, and the Donatists felt the effects 
of schism in their own body. A sect called Rogatists 
arose in the followers of Rogatus, bishop of Cartennae, 
and a dispute between Primian and his deacon, 
Maximian, caused the party of the Maximianists to 
be formed. ‘The laws against heresy were applied to 
the Donatists with little effect; and when Gildo, in 
A.D. 397, usurped the government of Africa, and sup- 
ported the schismatics, he exacted heavy reprisals 
from the Catholics. Gildo was defeated in a.p. 398, 
and new edicts were put in force by Honorius; but 
the Donatists were at this time far more powerful in 
Africa than the Catholics. 

Augustine was naturally the moving 

Augustine spirit in the African Church; and the 
Peta, fact that he had once been himself outside 
her pale, a member of the sect of the 
Manichaeans, who at least resembled the Donatists in 
considering themselves purer than the majority of 
Christians, helped him to understand the danger of the 
separatist position. He was the preacher at the synod 
at Hippo, held under the presidency of Aurelius, bishop 
of Carthage, in a.D. 393, where the Donatists were 
allowed to enter the Church on very wise and liberal 
terms;' and he followed the example of Arius and 
Gregory of Nazianzus by composing popular verses to 
make the merits of the controversy clear to the un- 
learned.? In 398 Petilian, a Donatist bishop, published 
an unsigned letter, proposing to stop all communion 
with the Catholic Church. This man had been a 


Donatist 
schisms. 


even ae Parmenian ‘brother’. Harnack, History of Dogma, vol. V¥.5 
Pp. 42H. 

1. Dict. Chr. Biog., art. ‘Donatism’, vol. 1., p. 8876. Donatist 
clergy were to retain their positions if they had not re-baptized, and if 
they had brought their flock back with them; and Donatist children were 
not to be excluded from the service of the altar. At this council 
Augustine (then still a priest at [lippo) delivered his discourse De Fide et 
Symbolo. Hefele, Councils, § 109. 

2. Dict. Chr. Biog., art. ‘Donatism’, p. 888a. It was called the 
Abecedaritum, and was a metrical composition arranged according to the 
letters of the alphabet. 


CH. XIX.] THE VISIBLE CHURCH. 499 


Catholic catechumen, but had been carried off by 
force by the Donatists and instructed in the principles 
of the sect. He had been a lawyer of some eminence, 
and now became the champion of his party. Augustine 
wrote three books against him, and other three against 
Parmenian, who had, as we have seen, succeeded to the 
bishopric of Carthage. Parmenian’s book, which pro- 
voked an answer from Augustine after the author was 
dead, was directed against the famous biblical scholar 
Tychonius, who, though a Donatist, was opposed to 
the narrow and exclusive views of the sect, to which, 
however, he still adhered.1 In Augustine’s treatises 
against Parmenian and Petilian, the doctrine of the 
Church, as he conceived it, is set forth. 

According to Augustine, the Church 
Angustine’s depends on her external organic unity 
view of the . . 

Ciacci: and the episcopal succession. When our 
Lord “breathed on” His disciples, He 
bestowed the Holy Ghost on the Church, which they 
represented. Outside the Church is no salvation, and 
heretics and schismatics must come into the fold to 
receive that love which is the peculiar gift of Catholic 
peace and unity. The existence of the Church, he says, 
depends not on the holiness of its members, but on its 
divine character as an institution. In opposition to 
the Donatists, Augustine said that in the Church were 
tares as well as wheat, and outside the Church wheat 
as well as tares. Here we see the large-mindedness of 
Augustine: but on one occasion he unfortunately used 
language which was employed to justify the persecutions 
of later days.? 


1. Tychonius (or Tichonius) is best known for his Seven Rules. See 
Cambridge Texts and Studies. 

2. Harnack, History of Dogma, vol. v., pp. 143ff., Eng. Tr. On 
p. 142, the Donatist position is summed up by a quotation from Augustine’s 
Contra lit. Petiliant 1. 3: ‘*Qui fidem a perfido sumpserit non fidem 
perficit sed reatum.” That is, an unfaithful priest cannot administer grace 
but only guilt. Augustine has to defend the sanctity of the visible Church 
against the individual minister as a channel of grace. He developes the 
doctrine of the Church with a view to the circumstances in which he finds 
himself placed. The unity of the Church depends on love: heretics by 
breaking with her shew that they do not possess this virtue. Only in the 
Church can holiness be attained. But at present there are unholy members 
in the visible Church, though these will ultimately be removed, and all 

II 2 


500 “COMPEL THEM TO COME IN.”  [cu. xIx. 


The conduct of the Donatists was 
certainly exasperating, and the extreme 
section of the party became a formidable 
danger to African society. The Civcumcellions were 
especially active in the neighbourhood of Hippo, and 
their ravages and plundering almost laid waste Augus- 
tine’s diocese. The vigorous measures taken by the 
Imperial authority resulted in a partial suppression of 
Donatism, and Augustine, in his treatise against a 
layman named Cresconius, justified the employment of 
the secular arm. ‘These sentiments, so much at variance 
with Augustine’s ordinary conduct in regard to his 
opponents, provoked a bishop named Vincentius to ask 
him if they really expressed his opinions. His reply was 
summed up in the words of our Lord in St. Luke’s 
Gospel, “‘Compel them to come in.” Augustine had 
said to Petilian, “I would have no man compelled to 
believe against his will.” But the few words by which 
he justified the principle of persecution outweighed 
what he had said in favour of toleration, and were 
destined to bear terrible fruit in after days. Augustine, 
however, earnestly deprecated bloodshed in coercing the 
Donatists. He urges Boniface to enforce the laws but 
to avoid imitating the Civcumcellions in shedding blood." 


Augustine 
and persecution. 


will be pure. Augustine, however, has to admit that sacraments may — 
be validly administered outside the Church; but he affirms that to reap_ 
their benefit (wtz/iter habere) it is necessary to be within the fold. Yet 
Augustine is singularly free from the hierarchical or materialistic notion 
of the Church. He makes apostolic succession a mark of a true branch 
of the Catholic Church: but, as Dr. Bethune-Baker truly remarks, 
‘* He lays stress on the bishops as the centre of unity, in proportion as he 
emphasises more the thought, that the presence of the Holy Spirit and of 
love are the true notes of the Church.” Harnack points out that in 
Augustine’s teaching, the Church is heavenly, its true home is in heaven 3 
it is Primeval, including those before and after Christ (see Dante, 
Paradiso, Canto XXXII.) ; it is holy and spiritual, containing the number 
of the elect. ‘‘ Augustine” he adds ‘‘subordinated the notion of the 
Church and Sacraments to the spiritual doctrine of God, Christ, the 
Gospel, faith, and love, as far as was at all possible about A.D. 400.” See 
also Bethune-Baker, Christan Doctrine, pp. 368 ff. 

1. Augustine, De Correctione Donatistarum (circa A.D. 418). Dean 
Milman (Hzst. of Christéanzty, vol. 111., p. 161 n.), speaking of Augustine’s 
attitude towards Church miracles, exactly describes his inconsistency 
in regard to persecution: ‘It is singular how often we hear at one time 
the strong intellect of Augustine, and at another the age of Augustine, 
speaking in his works.” 


CH. XIX.] THE END OF DONATISM. . 501 


It is but right to bear in mind that toleration is 
only possible when a religious body submits to certain 
laws. A sect which incites its members to acts of 
lawless violence against other religious bodies can 

never, in our days, obtain toleration in a civilised 
country. And such a sect was the Donatist. Had 
the State sternly repressed and punished all acts of 
violence, whether committed by Donatist or Catholic, 
the Civcumcellions would have been suppressed without 
the government’s incurring the reproach of persecution. 
But the age was incapable of comprehending these 
fine distinctions, and Augustine was in advance of his 
time in so earnestly desiring to avoid bloodshed after 
the provocation his flock had endured at the hands of 
the Circumcellions,+ 
In A.D. 411, a great conference was 
que Great held under the presidency of Marcellinus, 
A.D. 411. proconsul of Africa. The Donatists sent 
279 bishops and the Catholics 286. Each 
side chose seven representatives. The conduct of the 
Donatists disgusted Marcellinus, and his decision was 
that every Donatist bishop should go to his home and 
there join the true Church, or at least not impede the 
execution of the law. If they did not restrain the 
Circumcellions, the principal Donatists were to be de- 
prived of their places in the State. The Donatists 
appealed to the emperor Honorius, but received no en- 
couragement, and orders were given that they were to 
be henceforward reckoned as heretics, and if they did 
not return to the Church their property was to be 
confiscated. 

Donatism now began to decline, not merely on 
account of the imperial decree, but because the whole 
movement was discredited. Augustine had shewn how 
unreasonable the schism was, and the quibbling of the 
Donatists at the conference had disgusted every impartial 
person. At a council held at Carthage in a.p. 418, 
the Church speaks in a very different tone to that used 
twenty years earlier. Catholic and Donatist alike went 


1. In this he differed from Optatus, bishop of Milevis, whoappr oved 
of the death penalty. Harnack, Hist. of Dogma, v., p. 155n., Eng. Tr. 


£O3. S DOCTRINE OF GRACE, © [CH. XIX. 


down before the Vandal invaders; and except for a 
revival quickly suppressed in the sixth century, Donatism 
is heard of no more.! 


(3) We now reach the controversy 
with which the name of Augustine will 
always be associated. The problem of 
man’s salvation, though in the East it aroused only a 
passing interest, has had an abiding influence on the 
mind of Western Christendom. Herein lay the essential 
difference between the two Churches. The Church of 
the West was practical, concerned with the question 
how men are saved ; the more speculative Eastern mind, 
on the contrary, devoted its energies to determining 
profound problems of theology, such as that of the 
nature of God or of the relation of the Son to the 
Father. 

It is noteworthy that the originators of the dispute 
about Grace and Free Will agreed in being chiefly 
interested in promoting the cause of personal religion. 
Augustine and Pelagius had both earnestly pursued 
the path of holiness, and their divergent views resulted 
from different religious experiences. They were equally 
strenuous in opposing the nominal Christianity of their 
age. Pelagius, whom even Augustine admits to have 
been a man of blameless life, began the controversy by 
denouncing the excuses for not being consistent made 
by professing Christians. He was a zealot for righteous- 
ness; and’ we can never hope to understand the merits 
of the question, if we regard it simply as a debate 
between a godly bishop and a wicked heretic. 

The real difference between Augustine and Pelagius 
was that they had passed through opposite experiences. 
Pelagius had apparently led the tranquil life of a monk 
and a man of learning.? Such a training, at any rate 
to some natures, makes goodness appear to be a com- 
paratively easy matter. Their own will, rather than 
the hand of God, seems to dispose them to do right. 


Augustine 
and Pelagius. 


1. From Gregory the Great’s letter to Columbus, bishop of Numidia, 
(Zp. XXXv.), we learn that in Africa Catholics allowed their children to 
receive Donatist baptism. 

2. Harnack, Hést. of Dogma, vol. v., p. 170. Bethune-Baker, 
Christian Doctrine, pp. 312 ff. . 


CH, XIX.} PELAGIUS A MORAL REFORMER. 503 


Very different is it with the man who has sinned deeply 
and repented, whose conversion is an event to be looked 
back upon as an astounding miracle of mercy. To 
Augustine salvation seemed to have come in despite of 
himself, and to have been the work of God alone. 

Pelagius, a native of Britain, and a 
layman of mature age, had long been 
a conspicuous member of the religious 
society of Rome in the first years of the fifth century. 
He was a friend of Paulinus of Nola, who speaks of 
him as a true servant of God. While at Rome, 
Pelagius became acquainted with a fellow-countryman 
named Celestius, who practised as an advocate till his 
friend induced him to adopt a religious life. Pelagius 
was deeply grieved by observing the general laxity of 
Roman Christian morality, which he attributed to 
disregard of the truth that men are responsible to God 
for their own actions. He was violently indignant 
at hearing a bishop quote Augustine’s prayer to God 
in his Confessions, “‘Da quod iubes et tube quod uts,”? as if 
it meant that we were mere puppets in the hands of the 
Creator; and wrote to Paulinus of Nola on the subject. 
Pelagius in fact saw no safeguard for righteousness, 
unless men recognised the freedom of the Will and 
realised that they were accountable for their actions. 
Owing to Alaric’s approach Pelagius left Rome in 
A.D. 409, first for Sicily and thence in company with 
Celestius for Africa. He visited Hippo during Augus- 
tine’s temporary absence from his see. Though deeply 
engaged in the Donatist controversy, Augustine was 
perturbed by hearing that Pelagius had taught that 
infants are not baptized for the remission of sins, but in 
order to be sanctified by union with Christ. Pelagius, 
however, soon left Africa for Palestine, leaving Celestius 
at Carthage. 


Pelagius 
in Rome. 


1. Augustine bears testimony to the high character borne by Pelagius. 

‘“Nam ut de me ipso potissimum dicam, prius absentis et Romae cone 
stituti Pelagii nomen cum magna eius laude cognoui.” De Gestzs Pel., 
cap. xxii. 
2. Confess. x. 29. The context is ‘*O amor qui semper ardes et 
numquam exstingueris, caritas Deus meus, adcende me. Continentiam 
iubes, Da quod iubes et iube quod uis.” The incident is related in 
Augustine’s De dono Perseverantiae, cap. lili. 


504 CELESTIUS CONDEMNED. [cH. xIx. 


In a.p. 412 a Council was held at — 

Council at Carthage (at which Augustine was not 
ge, 

A.D. 412. present), and Celestius was condemned on 

seven charges brought against him by a 

deacon named Paulinus, the biographer of St. Ambrose.? 

The. Council declared Celestius guilty of teaching 

doctrines contrary to the Catholic faith. Celestius 

was accused of holding: 


(1) That Adam was created mortal, and would 
have died, even if he had not sinned. 

(2) The sin of Adam hurt only himself and not 
the whole human race. . 

(3) Infants at birth are as Adam was before the Fall. 

(4) In the death or fall of Adam all men do not 
die, nor does the race of man rise again 
in the resurrection of Christ. 

(5) The Law introduces men into the Kingdom of 
Heaven in the same way as the Gospel. 

(6) Even before Christ’s coming there were some 
men without sin. 

(7) Infants though not baptized have eternal life. 


Celestius threatened to appeal to Rome against the 
sentence of the Council, but afterwards changed his 
mind and betook himself to Ephesus.? 

a Pelagius had been some time in Pales- 
Felagins in tine, when a Spaniard named Orosius, a 
devoted disciple of Augustine, arrived, and 

after spending a short time with Jerome, who was 
already opposed to the new doctrines, went to Jerusalem 
and informed the bishop John that Pelagius was teaching 
doctrines of which Augustine disapproved. Pelagius 
not unnaturally asked Orosius ‘“‘ What is Augustine 
to me?” and John refused to be browbeaten into 
condemning Pelagius, bluntly remarking to Orosius, 


1. Harnack, History of Dogma, vol. V., p. 175+ 

2. Bright, Anti-Pelagian Treatises of St. Augustine, Introd., p. xvii. 
Augustine says that Celestius was more easy to refute than Pelagius. ‘* Quid 
inter istum et Celestium in hac quaestione distabit nisi quod ille apertior, 
iste occultior fuit; ille pertinacior iste mendacior; vel certe ille liberior, 
hic astutior.”” De Peccato Originalz, xii. Celestius opposed the doctrine 
of original sin. He delighted to shock people (/ortcter scandalizare) 
by the boldness of his teaching. 


CH. XIX. | SYNOD AT LYDDA, 505 


*T am Augustine here.” It was however agreed that 
as the opinions were of Latin origin they should be 
referred to Pope Innocent, as head of the Western 
Church.’ 

Jerome now endeavoured to procure a condemnation 
of Pelagius in the East, and a synod was held at 
Diospolis (Lydda), a.p. 415. Two deposed Western 
bishops, Heros of Arles and Lazarus of Aix, accused 
Pelagius of heresy before Eulogius, bishop of Caesarea 
and Metropolitan of the province, and fourteen other 
bishops. Pelagius’ explanations were accepted, and, 
though the heresy of Celestius was condemned,’ he 
was acquitted, much to the disgust of Jerome, whose 
monastery was attacked by the supporters of the accused. 
Pelagianism was in fact not entirely opposed to the 
views of the Orientals, who had always laid especial 
stress on the freedom of the Will.® 

In the following year, a.p. 416, two Councils were 
held in Africa, at which Pelagius and Celestius were 
condemned. A book by Pelagius was sent to Pope 
Innocent, who pronounced it to be blasphemous and 
dangerous, adding that the author and his abettors 
deserved to be excommunicated. 

In a.D. 417 Innocent died, and Zosimus, 
his successor, after seeing Celestius and 
receiving from Pelagius a profession of 
faith, reversed the decree of Innocent,‘ rebuking Aurelius, 
bishop of Carthage, for his. haste in condemning 
them. Augustine, however, perhaps by his influence 
with the Count Valerius, obtained an imperial decree 
banishing Pelagius, Celestius, and their followers. 
Zosimus had now no alternative but submission. He 
selected certain passages from the writings of Pelagius 


Pope Zosimus 
acquits Pelagius. 


I. These proceedings are related in the Apology of Orosius. Dict. 
Chr. Biog., art. ‘ Pelagius’, vol. Iv., p. 2866. 

2. Jerome, #/. CXLIII. 

3. The proceedings are related by Augustine in the De Gestis 
Pelagiz. Pelagius can hardly be acquitted of falsehood, or at least of 
misleading statements. Augustine says that Orosius, Heros, and Lazarus 
were not present. ‘‘ Si enim praesentes essent, possent eum fortasse, absit ut 
dicam, conuincere de mendacio, sed forte commemorare, quid forte fuisset 
oblitus,” etc. cap. xiv. 

4. Augustine, De Peccato Original, cap. xii. Bright, Antz-Pelagian 
Treatises, p. Xxxviii. 


506 PELAGIANISM PROSCRIBED. _ [cu. xix. 


for reprobation, and forced the bishops of Italy to 
subscribe to his sentence. Eighteen refused and were 
immediately deprived of their sees, among them Julian 
of Eclanum, Augustine’s most uncompromising opponent.} 
The Eastern Church endorsed the action of the Western 
some years later by condemning Pelagius at the Council 
of Ephesus (a.p. 431), thereby condemning the Antiochene 
theologians’ view of sin as expounded by Theodore 
of Mopsuestia, and even St. Chrysostom, who realizes 
less even than Theodore the weakness of man and 
his inability to attain to righteousness.” 

Pelagianism never attempted to Fenits 
a sect, and the persecutions which its 
advocates endured were not, as in the case of the 
Donatists, directed against an institution but against 
opinions. Augustine’s conduct, if he incited the civil 
power to suppress Pelagianism, is far less defensible than 
his action in regard to Donatism. The only possible 
excuse for him would be the intensity of his conviction 
that Pelagius’ doctrine was fatal to Christianity. To 
Augustine the denial of the necessity of Grace seemed 
to give the lie to the most real experience of his own 
life; and it is to this that we may perhaps attribute the 
exceeding bitterness with which Predestinarians have 
in all ages opposed the doctrine of the freedom of the 
Will. Yet, though we have some natural sympathy 
with the opinions advocated by Pelagius and Celestius, 


Pelagianism. 


1. For Julian of Eclanum see Hefele, of. czt., pp. 171, 191 ff. He 
boldly taunted Augustine with being a Manichaean in his doctrine of the 
Will. See also Milman, Azst. of Latin Christzanity, vol. 1., p. 164. 
Bright, of. cz¢., p. xliv. 

a Dr. Srawley’s article in Hastings’ Dzct. of Religion ana 
Ethics, ‘ Antiochene Theology’, sec. §. Julian of Eclanum and his 
companions, after their expulsion from the West, sought refuge with 
Theodore. 

3. Two phrasesin Holme’s Introduction to the English Translation of 
St. Augustine’s Aztz-Pelagian Treatises deserve attention. Augustine recog- 
nised that ‘‘ The Gospel was being fatally tampered with, in its essential facts 
of human sin and Divine grace ; so in the fulness of his own absolute loyalty 
to the entire volume of evangelical truth, he concentrated his best efforts in 
opposition to the now formidable heresy. ” (p. xii.) Despite the intensity 
of Augustine’s conviction it is said with equal truth, ‘‘ Of all theological 
writers in ancient or modern times, it may fairly be maintained that 
Augustine has shewn himself the most considerate and charitable towards 
his opponents.” (p. xvi.) See also Harnack, of. c¢?., p. 172. 


CH. XIx.] _ VIEWS OF PELAGIUS, 507 


we must admit that they are open to serious objections. 
Pelagianism was, as we have seen, a practical protest 
against the low ideal of Christianity prevalent in Rome 
during the first years of the fifth century. Augustine’s 
Confessions had in many cases induced a belief that men 
were but passive instruments in the hands of God, 
without freedom of Will or moral responsibility of any 
kind. To counteract its effects Pelagius had extolled 
the freedom of the Will so highly that he left but little 
room for the operation of Divine Grace.! Celestius, 
more zealous and less guarded than his master, not 
content with insisting that the Will is free, denied the 
existence of original sin, and maintained that infants 
were baptized, not in order that the taint of Adam’s 
sin might be removed, but for the purpose of being 
consecrated and sanctified for God’s service. He ad- 
mitted, however, that baptism gave remission of actual 
sins to adult persons. 
The opinion of Pelagius concerning 
potter to ~~ the freedom of the Will is expressed in 
his letter to Demetrias, a young lady, 
granddaughter of Falconia Proba, the friend of Jerome 
and a member of the highest aristocracy of Rome, whe 
shortly after the capture of the city decided to be a 
professed virgin. In Jerome’s opinion this triumph of 
the Faith seemed sufficient to console Italy for the 
sack of Rome! Pelagius, at the request of the mother 
of Demetrias, wrote a letter full of sensible advice, 
in which his peculiar views revealed themselves.? In 
protesting against those who made excuses for not 
leading a religious life, he says, “ We contradict the 
Lord when we say ‘It is hard: it is difficult: we 
cannot: we are men, we are encompassed with mortal 


x. Augustine gives Pelagius’ view of the Will. ‘* Ecce est totum dogma 
Pelagii in libro eius tertio Pro Libero Arbitrio, his omnino uerbis diligenter 
expressum, quo tria ista, unum quod est Zosse, alterum quod est we//e, tertium 
quod est esse, id est possibilitatem, uoluntatem, actionem, tanta curauit 
subtilitate distinguere, ut quandocunque legimus, uel audimus, diuinae 
gratiae adiutorium confiteri, ut a malo declinemus bonumque faciamus 
siue in lege atque doctrina, siue ubilibet constituat, sciamus quid loquitur.” 
De Gratza Christi, lib. 1., cap. v. 

2. The letter is in Migne, Patrologia Latina, vol. XXX., p. 22 
Bethune-Baker, Jutrod. to Early Christian Doctrine, p. 314. 


508 GRACE AND FREE-WILL. [CH. XIX, 


flesh’. Oh unholy audacity—we charge God with a 
twofold ignorance, that He does not seem to know what 
He has made, nor what He has commanded; just as if, 
forgetting the human weakness of which He Himself 
is the Author, He had imposed laws on man which he 
cannot endure.””? 

As regards Grace, Pelagius is some- 
what vague. Augustine seems to attribute 
to him the opinion that Grace is nothing more than 
those natural endowments which God has bestowed 
on us, or the example of Christ and the precepts of 
the Gospel. His error, however, seems to have been 
that he gave man such freedom of Will, that he denied 
the need of Grace to set the Will in action.? Augustine, 
on the contrary, taught that Grace was irresistible; 
Pelagius implied that it might be unnecessary, and 
quoted the example of those in the Old Testament of 
whom no sin is recorded, as a proof that man might 
live sinless unaided by Grace, though it is in most cases 
necessary. 


Grace. 


ats A modified sort of Pelagianism arose 
Somi-Pelagianism. i Gaul under John Cauda the organizer 
of Monasticism in that country. Cassian differed from 
Pelagius by maintaining that all men fell in the fall of 
Adam, and that no man is sufficient of himself to do any 
good work. He considered that the call of God comes 
as a rule to those ready to receive it, and quoted the 
example of Zacchaeus and the Penitent Thief. He 
denied that God predestined man to wrath, whilst 
acknowledging that God foresaw that some would 
deserve punishment for misusing the freedom of their 


1, Thus Pelagius remarks: ‘‘ Et improbissimi hominum dum dis- 
simulant id ipsum bene administrare quod facti sunt: aliter se factos fuisse 
malunt, ut qui uitam suani emendare nolunt, uideantur emendare uelle 
naturam.” Ad Demetriadem, cap. iii. 

2. Pelagius was ready to use the term Grace, but he seems to have 
meant sometimes the natural endowment of free will, viewed as the Creator’s 
gift, sometimes the moral law or other divinely bestowed instruction as to 
duty, or the pattern of instruction in Christ, and sometimes also the gift of 
Divine pardon. He held that God assisted by instruction the innate 
possibilities of good, but would not admit that He assisted by stimulus the 
actual exercise of volition. Holme, Intro. to Zrans. of St. Augustine. 


See Harnack, Hzst. of Dogma, vol. V., p. 188, Eng. Tr. Bethune-Baker, 


dnirod., pp. 314, 318 note I. 


CH. XIX. ] AUGUSTINIANISM. 509 


wills.1 This view was termed Semi-Pelagianism, and 
was popular in Gaul; it was strenuously opposed by the 
School of St. Augustine, especially by Prosper, author of 
the poem De Ingvatis. ‘The famous Vincentius of Lerins 
was probably a Semi-Pelagian.? 
Getta! Augustine took a severely logical view 
Augustine, Of the questions of Free-will, Grace, Pre- 
destination, and Election, drawing his 
conclusions from his own experiences and the teaching 
of Scripture: nor did he shrink from accepting what the 
seemingly irresistible force of argument led him to 
believe was true. With mathematical precision Augus- 
tine sets forward his premises and makes his deduction. 
The unbaptized infant perishes,®> Grace once given is 
indefectible and cannot be resisted; the number of the 
elect is known to God, those outside it are justly cast 
away.* The call being from God, man’s will cannot 
resist it, nor can it accept salvation unless God so wills. 
This terrible system—put forward by a man of remark- 
able piety, full of love and sympathy, whose own con- 
version, described by himself with matchless skill, was the 
result of a long mental struggle—found acceptance not 
only in Africa, the home of uncompromising Christianity, 
but throughout the West. There is something naturally 
Augustinian in strong and serious minds, against which 


1. Harnack, “7st. of Dogma, vol. V., p. 245, Eng. Tr. Bethune- 
Baker, Christzan Doctrine, p. 322. 

2. Anotein Harnack’s History of Dogma (vol. V., p. 247, Eng. Tr.) 
says ‘‘The Commonztorium is directed exclusively against St. Augustine.” 
The second part of the Commonitorium is, it is true, in mutilated form, and 
there is a silence as to St. Augustine, which together with an allusion to 
him in Prosper seems to give some plausibility to the view that Vincentius 
was a Semi-Pelagian. See Dict. Chr. Biog., art. ‘ Vincentius’, vol. Iv., 

e II ° 
: oe Augustine admits of degrees of misery. Infants who die un- 
baptized suffer a very mild punishment, ‘ mitissima poena,’ Enchirzdion, 
103. ‘‘ Thus the man” (says Harnack, Ast. of Dogma, V. 213) ‘* permits 
himself to soften the inscrutable righteousness of God which he teaches 
elsewhere.” Bright, Antz-Pelagian Treatises, p. xiv. 

4. But Augustine is unlike Calvin, because he guards against the 
idea which ascribes arbitrariness to God in His rejection of the wicked, 
the notion that human nature is totally depraved, and the denial of 
personal responsibility, ‘‘It is necessary,” says Dr. Cunningham, ‘‘if 
we are to weigh St. Austin’s teaching fairly, that we should note how at 
point after point Calvin failed to follow the doctrine of the African 
Doctor.” St. Austin and his Place in the History of Christian Thought, 
p. 82. 


510 DANGER OF PELAGIANISM, __ [CH. XIX. 


more rational views of God’s dealings seem to strive in 
vain. Determinism appears to many the only possible 
logical view of human life, whether regarded from a 
scientific or from a religious standpoint. Yet there is 
something in us constantly rebelling against this con- 
ception; and few, like Augustine, can face the con- 
clusions to which it leads. Again and again have 
Christians risen up in protest; their hearts condemning 
the view from which a stern logic seems to leave no 
escape. Yet, strange to say, wherever Christianity has 
been most zealously adopted Augustinian views have 
prevailed. Men possessed with the idea that they are 
predestined instruments in the hands of God have effected 
more than those who have believed themselves to be free 
agents; and strange as it may seem, the dark dogmas 
of Augustinianism have frequently succeeded in raising 
in the heart a passionate desire for purity of life and 
conduct. The remarkable influence of Augustine is 
manifest in the way in which he shaped the subsequent 
course of Western theology. 

Whatever opinions we may hold concerning the 
system of Augustine and the doctrines he taught, there 
can be no doubt as to the elevation of character and 
the purity of motive displayed by him throughout the 
controversy. Though Pelagius had earnestly disclaimed 
any intention of propounding new dogmas, and declared 
that the question was an open one on which good men 
might agree to differ, his theory, as developed by Celestius 
and formulated by Julian of Eclanum, was in reality a 


1. See the discussion of Augustine’s position by Dr. Cunningham, 
St. Austin and hts Place in the History of Christian Thought, under the 
heading ‘Commonly Recognised Facts of Human Nature’, pp. 81 ff. 
There is, however, a very strong tendency at the present time to deny 
that original sin is transmitted ; but a different sense is given to original 
sin from that implied by Augustine. Weismann, for instance, maintains 
that acquired characters are not transmitted, and the inference drawn is 
‘that each child has a new beginning; the way is as open to the child of 
the wicked as to the child of the virtuous”. But Augustine taught that as 
the very act of generation was sinful all children are born in sin, and are 
therefore unfit to be members of the kingdom of heaven until they are 
regenerated. Augustine’s anthropology depends in some degree on a view 
of the propagation of the human race which is almost revolting to the 
modern mind. See the Essays by Prof. H. Jones and Mr. Tennant in 7he 
Child and Religion. 


CH. XIX.] | ROME TAKEN, 511 


dangerous and insidious heresy. In practically denying 
the operation of Divine Grace and leaving salvation to 
the will of man, the Pelagians gave God no part in the 
regeneration of the world. Augustine was as right in 
opposing a system which would have emptied Christianity 
of its Divine Element,! as Athanasius had been in resisting 
Arianism. But in doing so these two Fathers agreed in 
never allowing the personal element to prejudice their 
judgment. Augustine did not even want to force his own 
views on Pelagius; but only required him to acknow- 
ledge the necessity of a “true internal and assisting 
grace without admitting it to be irresistible”’.2 Even at 
the time when he was most provoked by the acquittal of 
Pelagius, he could speak with consideration of him. In 
the later controversy with Julian of Eclanum he main- 
tained a similar tone of courtesy ; though his antagonist 
pressed him with all the arrogance of youth, taunted 
him with being imbued with Manichaean opinions, and 
attacked his favourite doctrine of the perfection of a 
virgin life. Augustine is the most modern of the Fathers 
in his command of temper; and it may be added, in his 
unwillingness to be over-positive in the case of the 
mysteries of the Faith. 

(4) The City of God is Augustine’s great- 

The ; : : P 
City of Goa,’ St literary production, on account of the 

circumstances that called it forth, the scope 
of the work, and its immense influence on posterity. 

On August 24, a.D. 410 (or 409, for the actual year is 
uncertain), Alaric, who had twice before led his army 
to Rome, took the city. Her fall is a most inglorious 
ending to the long period of immunity from foreign foes 
which Rome had enjoyed. Since B.c. 390, the year of the 
destruction of the city by the Gauls, no hostile army had 
entered her gates. Alaric, however, captured the city 
without heroic defence or protracted siege. The Porta 
Salaria was opened by treachery: the Goths entered by 


1. Harnack (of. czt., vol. v., p. 189) calls Pelagianism as expounded 
by Julian of Eclanum a Stoic Christian system. 

2. Bright, Anti-Pelagian Treatises, p. ix. ‘‘ Quid enim dici brevius 
potuit et uerius, quam possibilitatem non peccandi, quantacunge est vel 
erit in homine, nonnisi Deo debere reputari? Hoc et nos dicimus ; 
jungamus dexteras.” Aug., De Natura et Gratia, cap. lil. 


512 FORBEARANCE OF THE GOTHS.  [{cu. xix. 


night and fired the neighbouring houses, destroying the 
villa of Sallust as they poured into the defenceless 


city. The sack lasted three days, and terrible as it 


must have been, the bloodshed was small in com- 
parison with subsequent captures of Rome by an enemy. 
Though Alaric’s soldiers were barbarians, they were 
Christians; and many examples of their forbearance 
and reverence for the churches are recorded.’ Jerome’s 
friend, the pious Marcella, however, died of the treat- 


ment she had received;? and there were doubtless - 


many other atrocities committed. But, though we 
have no record of the sack by an eye-witness, we need 
not hesitate to affirm that a three days pillage by 
troops which were sufficiently under control to be with- 
drawn at the end of that brief period, ‘cannot compare 
with the horrors which have not unfrequently followed 
the capture of cities even in comparatively modern 

times.® 
i : But the impression made on the 
produced by the WOrld was tremendous. Men could not 
FallofRome. believe that Rome had fallen. Jerome 
on hearing the news can find no language 


but that of Isaiah to express his horror. ‘“‘ Nocte Moab 


captus est, nocte cecidit murus eius.’"“ ‘The heathen laid 
the blame on Christianity, and declared that had Rome 
remained faithful to her ancient gods she never would 
have been taken. ‘This led Augustine to commence his 
great work on the City of God. 
It would not be possible to do justice 
The argument +o so important a work in a few lines, 
of ‘The aes 
City of Goa’. but a short sketch may serve to indicate 
the scope of the argument. Augustine 
shews that other cities had not been saved by their gods, 
and that the Romans had shewn no mercy to captured 


I. Orosius, vii. 32. Sozomen, ix. 10, Augustine, De Czv. Dez, 
bk. 1. Hodgkin, /tuly and her Invaders, vol. 1., p. 798. 
2. Hieron., Ep. cxxvil., Ad Principiam. Hom. in Ezechielem. 

It may be conjectured that ‘‘ Rome suffered less, externally, from 
the barbarians in 410 than Paris from the leaders of the Commune in 
1871”. Hodgkin, of. czt,, p. 799. 

4. Isaiah, xv. 1. ‘*Quia nocte uastata est Ar Moab, conticuit ; quia 
nocte uastatus est murus Moab, conticuit.” (Vulgate.) 


CH. XIX.] EXPOSURE OF PAGANISM, 513 


cities nor to their temples. But, because they were 
Christians, the Goths had respected the churches and 
the fugitives who took refuge in them. They had spared 
even those pagans, who were now blaming Christianity 
for having caused the fall of Rome, but who yet had 
saved their lives by fleeing to the churches.1 What 
shocked Augustine so much was the way in which 
the fugitives from Rome, who had taken refuge at 
Carthage, clamoured for theatres and amusements.? 
He devotes much space to exposing the horrors of 
_the Roman stage.’ The plays, be it remembered, were 
acted in honour of the gods, and he asks what sort 
of gods they were who persuaded their worshippers to 
act plays in their honour which no decent man could 
look at. He speaks of the noble morality of the ancient 
Romans, and shews how far their descendants had 
departed from following their example. He asks what 
the gods had done to improve morals. Are any of the 
great moral works read in their temples? Plato’s for 
example?‘ ‘Then he discourses at some length on the 
character and origin of the Roman religion. Varro is 
of opinion that there is really but one god, Jupiter; 
and Augustine asks how it is, if this is the case, that 
so many deities reign for him by presiding over every 
act in life.® He next discusses the view of Scaevola, 
the Pontifex Maximus, that there are three kinds of 
gods, those of the poet, of the philosopher, and of the 
statesman.® After indignantly condemning the notion 
that cities should be deluded in the matter of religion, 
Augustine goes on to discuss the different conceptions 
of gods; and declares that it was not the worship 
of the ancient Romans which had made them great, 
but their virtues. 


1. De Civ. Det, 1. 1. ‘Nam quos uides petulanter et procaciter 
insultare serius Christi, sunt in eis plurimi, qui illum interitum clademque 
non euasissent, nisi seruos Christi se esse finxissent.” 

0. Dé Cr. Das, I, 23. 

2, De Cro, Des, iI. :7. 

4. De Civ. Det, i. 7. ‘Quanto melius et honestius in Platonis 
templo libri eius legerentur, quam in templis daemonum Galli abscin- 
derentur.” 

Ge 26 Cet Dei, IV. 9 {0 

6. De Cee. Dei; 1. 27 3. VL. §. 


514. INFLUENCE OF THE DE CIVITATE, (cu. xix: 


A large portion of the work is devoted 
Estimate of the +5 Platonism, especially the doctrine 
concerning daemons; and though this is 

decidedly tedious to the modern reader, it is of im- 
portance to Augustine’s argument, as it was necessary 
for him to shew wherein the Christian doctrine of angels 
differed from the Platonic teaching. ‘There follows a 
long discussion as to the nature of the soul, the origin 
of evil, the character and the justice of God’s rewards 
and punishments. When, however, we seek for the main 
subject of the book, the City of God, it must be owned 
that it is disappointing to learn so little of Augustine’s 
opinions as to its nature. But although it has been not 
altogether untruly said that the conception of the work 
is greater than the work itself,’ hardly any book has 
so profoundly influenced Western Christianity. The 
idea of the Christian Society being the City of God 
was never absent from the mediaeval mind, and prevailed 
long after the Reformation. It caused that sharp dis- 
tinction between sacred and profane which has still 
so much influence;? yet despite this separation of 
religious from secular life, which in theory was potent 
in all Western theology, the conception of the City of 
God gave a distinctly practical turn to the ideals of 
the Western Church. As a work of learning, the De 
Civitate Dei shews how widely read Augustine was, 
and how varied were his sympathies. In many cases 
he anticipates modern ideas in such a way as to make 
his book a necessary study to-day. In some respects, 
however, his method of thought is singularly alien, not 
only to modern notions, but to the more liberal theology 
of the Greek Church. The hard judicial logic of the 
West characterises his whole treatment of salvation 
and reprobation. He falls far short of Jerome as a 
critic, if indeed he can be considered to be a critic 


1. Hodgkin, Jtaly and her Invaders, vol. 1., p. 805. 

2. ‘But Augustine gave a much stronger hold than his pre- 
decessors to the conception that the Church is the Kingdom of God, and 
by the manner in which in his ‘ Divine Comedy’, the De Czvitate Dez, 
he contrasted the Church with the State, far more than his own expressed 
view, he roused the conviction that the empirical Catholic Church . . . 
was the Kingdom of God, and the independent State that of the devil.” 
Harnack, Hzst. of Dogma, V., ch. 151, Eng. Tr. 


CH. X1x.] INVASION OF AFRICA, 515 


at all. He accepts the literary traditions of his age as 
easily as Jerome believes a miraculous story about 
a monk. The story of the inspired origin of the 
Septuagint, for example, is related without hesitation, 
and the prophecies of the Sibyl readily gain credence. On 
the other hand, the difficulties of the Old Testament, 
moral, chronological and other, are discussed at length 
and with considerable acumen.’ Thecontradictions and 
inconsistencies in the mind of Augustine, like those in 
the character of Jerome, are illustrations not only of their 
age, but of mediaeval methods of thought, which these 
two great men so largely contributed to form. 


2S Sia Nothing now remains but to speak 
Africa. of the Vandal invasion of Africa and 
the closing scenes of Augustine’s life. 
A great reason for the intellectual vigour displayed by 
the Christians of the African provinces in the fourth and 
fifth centuries had been their isolation. Protected by 
sea, though the southern frontiers were in constant 
danger from the Moors, the country and the coast towns 
remained undisturbed by the hordes of barbarians which 
were spreading desolation in Gaul, Spain, and Italy. 
Hitherto the troubles of Africa under Roman rule had 
been chiefly due either to the turbulence of the Donatists, 
or to the rebellious spirit of the provincials and their 
governors.2 Thus when Rome was taken by Alaric it 
was to Carthage that the fugitive citizens betook them- 
selves, as to a secure haven of refuge. But during the 
last days of the life of Augustine the Roman supremacy 
in Africa was overthrown, and the Catholic Church 
shared in its downfall. 

Among Augustine’s patrons and peni- 
tents none was more distinguished than 
Boniface, the Comes of Africa. By the year a.p. 422 
he had, as was admitted on all sides, gained a reputation 
alike as a military leader and as a man of high and 
honourable character. In 412 he is said to have driven 
Ataulfus, the successor of Alaric, from Massilia, and ten 


Count Boniface. 


1, Je Civ. Dei, xv., cap. ¥9 ff. 


2. Like that of Gildo the Moor, a.p. 398, and Heraclian, A.D. 413, 
both of whom were Counts of Africa, 


KK 2 


516 FALL OF COUNT BONIFACE.  [cH. XIX. 


years later he had distinguished himself against the 
Vandals in Spain. Either as a usurper or as a lawfully 
appointed governor, for even this is not clear, he ad- 
ministered the affairs of the province of Africa with 
energy and ability, and at the same time became the 
friend and correspondent of Augustine. From the 
writings of this Saint we learn that his friend’s official 
position at this time was that of ‘Count of Africa’ 
and ‘Count of the Domestics’. Suddenly and unac- 
countably, at the time of his first wife’s death, Boniface’s 
character underwent a complete change. He had been 
anxious to embrace a religious life, or at any rate 
to take a vow of continence. But he was called 
away from Africa, and during his absence he married 
an Arian wife, named Pelagia. From that time 
he seems to have steadily degenerated. His morals 
became daily more irregular, and his indolence proved 
a source of danger to the province, as no efforts were 
made to protect the frontier from the Moors. Augustine 
indignantly remonstrated with Count Boniface for his 
apostasy and also for his scandalous neglect of duty ;1 
and, as one story goes, the Count was destined to be 
deluded into the commission of an even more serious 
crime. | 
The Western Empire was under the nominal 
government of the youthful Valentinian III. and of his 
mother, Galla Placidia, the daughter of Theodosius I. 
The real rulers, however, were the two powerful 
generals, Boniface and his rival Aetius. The latter 
persuaded Placidia that Boniface was a traitor, and an 
expedition was sent to drive him out of Africa. To 
protect himself Boniface called in the assistance of 
Gaiseric and his Vandals.” 
The Vandal invasion of Africa 
St. Berruscttiat proved a terrible blow to the Church, 
owing to the barbarians being Arians 
and bitterly hostile to Catholic Christianity. In 


1. Augustine, Zf. CCxx. 


2. Freeman (Western Europe in the Fifth Century, Appendix I.) 
denies the truth of the story of Boniface and his rivalry with Aetius, as 
resting solely on the evidence of Procopius (Be//. Vand. 1. 3), who went 
to Africa with Belisarius in A.D. 533. 


CH. XIX.] VANDAL PERSECUTION. 517 


A.D. 428 Gaiseric with some 80,000 males, including 
old men and children, crossed from Spain to Africa and 
found the whole country an easy prey. By a.p. 430 
only three towns were able to offer resistance, Hippo, 
Cirta, and Carthage. Augustine and the wretched 
Boniface, the cause of all this ruin, were shut up in 
Hippo, which stood a siege of fourteen months, during 
which Augustine died on August 28, a.p. 430, in the 
seventy-sixth year of his age. The provinces of Africa 
were ceded to the Vandals in a.p. 435, only Carthage 
remaining in Roman hands; and that city was taken 
by Gaiseric in A.D. 439. 

ene The Vandal rule in Africa lasted for 

tyranny, 2 little more than a century, including 
the fifty years reign of Gaiseric. With 
the history of this period it is not necessary for us to deal, 
save in so far as it affects the Church. It is, however, 
in one respect of special interest as being a striking 
example of the oppression of Catholic provincials by 
Arian conquerors. The Vandals, proud of their valour 
and of the superior purity of their lives, treated the 
orthodox as their inferiors alike in morals and theology. 
The churches were confiscated, the bishops driven from 
their sees; in some instances persecution was carried 
to the last extremity, and men were martyred for 
refusing to deny the faith of the Church. But, speaking 
generally, there was not more severity shewn to the 
Catholic religion than might have been expected to be 
displayed by victorious settlers towards the faith of a 
subject people! But for the men who had seen the 
Church triumph under Augustine over all the powerful 
sects in Africa, to have to accept bare toleration at the 
hands of Arian barbarians was indeed a bitter trial, 
and the oppressed Catholics have caused the name of 
Vandal for all time to be associated with wanton 
destruction. 

From the fallen Church of Africa we 
turn to the rising Roman community, 
which increased steadily in power and 
influence during the first half of the fifth century. 


1. L. R. Holme, Zhe Extinction of the Christian: Churches tn 
North Africa. 


The Church of 
Rome. 


518 THE ROMAN CHURCH, [cH. XIX, 


We have shewn elsewhere how under Damasus 
the Roman Church, with her apostolic traditions and 
her wealth of martyrs, had begun to attract Christians 
from all parts of the world; and under his successors 
her importance, despite the many calamities of the city, 
never ceased to grow, as the prestige of the former 
mistress of the world became more and more centred 
in the person of her bishop. Three things contributed 
to this rapid increase of the Apostolic See: (1) its un- 
swerving orthodoxy and moral superiority to the Eastern 
patriarchates; (2) the ability of two at least of the 
pontiffs, Innocent and Leo; (3) the reverence with which 
men looked to Rome as the repository of the glorious 
traditions of the past. The withdrawal, moreover, of 
the seat of government from Rome enhanced the im- 
portance of the Church; for although the Sees of the 
administrative capitals of Italy, like Milan and Ravenna, 
occasionally claimed to be independent and even superior 
to Rome, these annoyances were more than compensated 
by the absence of any rival to the Pope in the city itself. 
Even the two sacks of Rome, by Alaric in a.p. 410 and 
by Gaiseric in A.D. 455, augmented the influence of the 
Church by removing the great families, whose secular 
magnificence had previously obscured the splendour of 
the hierarchy. Amid the disasters of the age the sole 
protection of the oppressed, whom the Emperor and his 
armies were powerless to assist, was found to be the 
commanding influence of the Christian Church. Outside 
Italy, moreover, there was a growing tendency to look 
to Rome for guidance and support; and as a rule the 
Roman bishops took the side of persecuted orthodoxy 
and virtue. It was not forgotten that Athanasius had 
found refuge from his enemies at Rome in the days of 
Julius; and that John Chrysostom had received the 
unwavering support of Innocent I., who withdrew 
from communion with the three great patriarchates of 
Alexandria, Antioch, and Constantinople, till justice 
had been done to the memory of that much injured 
bishop. The preeminence of the Roman See in the fifth 
century is attributable to many causes, not the least of 
which was the high character which the Church of the 
Imperial City deservedly bore. 


a as 


CH. XIX.) THE FIRST ROMAN CHURCHES, 519 


ar SH Church of Rome had been for 
mipstrabive nearly three. centuries a’ Greek rather 
tioned) than a Latin community; but after the 
reign of Constantine the Latin element 
preponderated, and early in the fifth century the very 
knowledge of Greek had begun to disappear from among 
the clergy. It had been long characteristic of Rome that 
she had been able to attract rather than to produce 
great intellects; and the sterility of her Church in this 
respect is in marked contrast to the productiveness of 
those of Alexandria, Carthage, and Antioch. But Rome 
amply atoned for any lack of intellectuality by her 
singular power of fostering administrative ability. 
The calm dignity, the capacity for affairs, the tranquil 
order of government, which had characterised the State 
of Rome in its greatest days, was now manifested in the. 
Church. Her ceremonies were distinguished by their 
simplicity and restraint; her creed was the briefest 
and least theological of all confessions of faith. The 
sermons which have come down to us are not instinct 
with the eloquence and rhetoric of the Gregorys or 
of Chrysostom, but have the terse precision of legal 
decrees. The impression which a study of the Roman 
Church in the fifth century leaves, is one of solidity and 
strength. She at least compelled respect from other 
Churches, and seemed already conscious of her destiny 
to become the spiritual judge of Western Europe. 
: Tradition says that the earliest 
Churches in church in Rome, that of St. Pudentiana, 
was founded as early as a.p. 143 by PiusI.; 
and the church of St. Cecilia is attributed, but with 
little authority, to Callixtus I. (a.p. 21g—223). The 
basilicas of St. Alexius and St. Prisca are also supposed 
to be earlier than the conversion of Constantine.’ 
Constantine erected the church of the Lateran, 
near the palace which he had bestowed on Pope Sylvester, 
and dedicated it to the Saviour, nor was it till the sixth 
century that it received the name of St. John the 
Baptist. It was popularly known as the church of 
Constantine. 


1. Gregorovius, Rome in the Middle Ages, vol. 1., pp. 82 ff. See 
also Barnes, St. Peder in Rome. 


520 INCREASE OF PAPAL AUTHORITY. [CH, atx 


The origin of St. Peter’s is more obscure; but the 
great church on the Vatican is generally ascribed to 
Constantine, who is also credited with having built 
another famous church outside the walls of Rome, that 
of St. Paul on the Ostian Way, a mile from the city. 
This was rebuilt by the praefect Sallust at the command 
of Theodosius and his sons. The other churches of the 
fourth century were those of St. Laurence, St. Agnes, 
St. Crux in Hierusalem, SS. Petrus and Marcellinus, 
St. Clement, and the two subsequently dedicated to 
the Virgin, Sta. Maria in Trastevere and Sta. Maria 
Maggiore." 3 

It will be seen that, considering the vast size of 
Rome, there were but few churches in existence at the 
beginning of the fifth century, and that it is impossible 
to measure the influence of Christianity there by the 
visible tokens of its existence. ‘The most famous churches 
had been built either outside the walls or far from the 
heart of the city. They were, as it were, forts erected 
by the new Faith preliminary to the complete capture of 
the capital of the world. 

be How steadily the Roman Church con- 

ofthe Popes, SOlidated her authority from the days of 

Damasus to the death of Leo is shewn by 

the history of the successive pontiffs. And, as is often 

the case in human affairs, the policy of the Popes 

appears to have been guided by the irresistible force 
of circumstances. : 

ane Siricius, the successor of Damasus, 
AD 384-898, Presided over the Roman Church from 

A.D. 384 to 398, and his correspondence 
with Himerius, bishop of Tarragona in Spain, throws an 
unexpected light on the relations of the Roman See with 
the Peninsula. Himerius had sent to Damasus questions 
on fourteen doubtful points: but Damasus had died, and 
it fell to Siricius to answer the letter. The language 
of the Pope shews that he is fully aware of the 
supremacy of his See. ‘‘ We bear” says Siricius “the 
burthen of all who are heavy laden; nay rather the 
blessed Apostle Peter bears them in us, who, as we 
trust, in all things protects and guards us, the heirs 


I. Gregorovius, of. czt.. pp. 88 ff. 


CH, XIX.] THE FIRST DECRETAL, 521: 


of his administration.” The bishop of Tarragona is 
commanded to publish the papal decrees in the five 
provinces of Spain—Tarraconensis, Carthaginensis, 
Baetica, Lusitania and Gallicia. The most interesting 
part of the letter is the fifth Canon, in which the marriage 
of the clergy after attaining the rank of deacon and 
upwards, as well as cohabitation with their wives if 
already married, is sternly interdicted.*. The letter is 
really a decretal, and it is the first papal communica- 
tion of this kind extant. It is maintained by some that 
Siricius held a council at Rome and promulgated another 
decretal letter to the Churches of Africa, which is found 
among the decrees of a council held at Telepte in 
Africa; but its genuineness is disputed.’ 
Anastasius succeeded Siricius; but his 
Anastasius and pontificate (A.D. 398402) was both short 
nnocent I. 
AD, 398—4i7, and uneventful. The longer and more 
important primacy of Innocent I. (a.p. 
402—417) is an epoch in papal history full of stirring 
events, and providing opportunities of which Innocent 
did not fail to take advantage. Innocent intervened 
with authority in the ecclesiastical affairs of Gaul, 
Spain, Illyricum and Africa, and took an honourable 
part in the disputes which distracted the Eastern 
Church. 

The examples of the intervention of Innocent in 
the affairs of other Churches shew the position which 
the See of Rome held in the estimation of the Christians 
of the fifth century. In every case the extant letters of 
Innocent were in response to questions concerning the 
law and practice of the Church. As in the days of 
Irenaeus, Rome was the repository of tradition; but 
whereas in the second century men looked to her for 
decision as to the norm of the faith of the Church, in 
the fifth century she seems to have been more usually 
consulted in matters of law. In the decretals of Siricius 
and Innocent two points are uniformly insisted on—the 
obligation of the higher clergy to abstain from their 
wives, and the necessity of men passing through the 


1. Dict. Chr. Biog., art. ‘Siricius’, vol. 1V., pe 697. 
2. Hefele, Councils, § 105. 


/ 


622 POPE INNOCENT DEMONSTRATES. [cu, xix. 


lower grades of the ministry before being admitted to 
the superior orders. Ta 
: In the matter of St. John Chrysostom, 
and Glrysostom, LoMocent deserves every commendation 
for having risen superior to the traditions 
of his See, the prejudices of his age, and the natural 
jealousy of Rome at the growing prestige of her rival. 
Since the days of Athanasius, the Popes had been the allies 
and supporters of Alexandria, and the opponents of the 
faction of the Church of Antioch to which Chrysostom, 
the friend of Flavian, had belonged.’ Origenism was 
not in favour at Rome; and Theophilus, supported by 
St. Epiphanius, the bishop most reverenced for orthodoxy 
throughout the Church, and by the great Western 
theologian St. Jerome, had disguised his enmity against 
Chrysostom under the specious pretext of zeal for the 
Faith. Furthermore, the humiliation of Chrysostom 
was in reality designed to weaken the reputation of 
the Church of New Rome, which had gained so much 
from the piety and genius of her eloquent patriarch. 
Innocent therefore had every worldly inducement to 
shew hostility to Chrysostom and to support Theophilus. 
From the first, however, the Pope stood by Chrysostom, 
writing letters of consolation to him and to the clergy 
of Constantinople, annulling the decrees of the Synod 
of ‘the Oak’, and doing his utmost to induce the 
emperor Honorius to interfere on behalf of the per- 
secuted bishop. Even after Chrysostom’s death Innocent 
did not let the matter drop; but refused to hold com- 
munion with the Churches of the East till justice had 
been done? Antioch was the first of the patriarchates 
to be reconciled to Rome, on the name of Chrysostom 
being placed on the diptychs in a.p. 413 ; Constantinopfe 
followed soon afterwards; but Alexandria remained out 
of communion with Innocent till a.p. 417, thirteen years 
after the deposition of Chrysostom. It is no wonder, 
therefore, that the Roman See was regarded in the East 
with reverence as the champion of those who were 
unjustly oppressed. 


1. Vide supra, pp. 447—8. 
2. Stephens, Zzfe of Chrysostom, ch. xX. 


CH. XIXx.] ETRUSCAN SOOTHSAYERS. 523 


PET nose The feeble emperor, Honorius, retired 
t6 Beme. to Ravenna in a.p. 404, leaving the task 
of government to base and unworthy 
favourites, who were powerless to prevent the advance 
of Alaric and his Goths; and soon the intrigues which 
ended with the death of the valiant Stilicho, the one 
general who could have opposed the invader, left the 
way to Rome open to the Gothic chief. Into the 
devious political intrigues of the day it is unnecessary 
to enter. Suffice it to say that Stilicho was put to death 
in A.D. 408, and in the same year Alaric laid siege to 
‘Rome. There were no warlike operations, there was 
no defence. Alaric simply invested the city and let 
hunger do its work. The Romans sent an embassy to 
the barbarian with bold words; to which Alaric replied 
“Thick grass is easier mown than thin’; and when 
asked what would be left if they acceded to his terms, 
replied “Your lives”. In their despair the Romans 
turned to the gods of their fathers; and the heathen 
Zosimus tells a strange story, which the Christian 
historian, Sozomen, partly confirms. He relates that 
the Etruscan soothsayers were consulted, and that sacri- 
fices were offered at Narni, which were believed to have 
propitiated the neglected gods and to have terrified the 
barbarians. Pompeianus, the praefect of the city, though 
a professing Christian, half persuaded by this alleged 
deliverance, consulted the Pope whether it would not be 
advisable to repeat the experiment in Rome. Innocent, 
as is reported, gave leave to the Etruscans to practise 
their rites in private. But they declared that to be 
efficacious the ceremonies must be performed in public, 
so nothing was done. Soon afterwards the Romans 
agreed to Alaric’s terms, and the Goths retired. The 
story rests on the prejudiced testimony of a heathen 
historian, but, even if incredible, it illustrates the 
feelings of the age? 


1. See Hodgkin, Ztaly and her Invaders, vol. 145 p. 771. The 
Gothic (sazva/a) may mean ‘life’ or ‘soul’. 

2. Zosimus, V. 41. Sozomen, 1x. 6. The former says that Innocent 
preferred the safety of Rome to his own religion. 06 de Tijs Tohews wrnpiav 
éumpoobev Tis olkeias moinodpuevos Sdgns AdOpa epijxev avrois woreiv darep 
tcagw. Paganism was exceedingly strong at this time, and the code is full 


524 MODERATION OF THE BARBARIANS. [cH. x1x. 


The second siege of Rome by Alaric witnessed 
another revival of paganism in the setting up of a 
rival to Honorius in the person of an Arian Greek 
named Attalus, who was supposed to be in favour of 
restoring the sacrifices. He reigned some ten months 
as the ally of Alaric, whom he raised to the rank of 
Magister utviusque militiae; but finally Alaric deposed 
this puppet emperor and again made overtures to 
Honorius. As these proved fruitless he commenced the 
third siege of Rome, which ended in the capture of the 
city by the barbarians, August 24, 410. 

freeones The details of the Fall of Rome, one 
’ of the most dramatic events in history, 
are veiled in obscurity; since-no record of the event 
from an eye-witness has come down to us. But 
what is remarkable is that the Christian Fathers dwell 
less on the horrors of the sack than on the singular for- 
bearance of the barbarians. Alaric’s Goths were Arians; 
but it is generally conceded that they shewed the utmost 
reverence towards the churches and the sacred treasures 
of the Christians. Cases are recorded of the piety and 
purity of Christian women winning the respect of their 
captors. Augustine and Orosius both contrast the mercy 
shewn by the barbarians with the ferocity of the ancient 
Romans when they captured the cities of their enemies.’ 
But the strongest testimony to the moderation of Alaric 
is the shortness of the time allowed for pillage. In 
three, or at most six, days he had reassembled his forces 
and withdrawn them from the city. When we re- 
member the horrors of the sack of Rome by Catholic 
Spaniards and Lutheran Germans in 1527,’ the irre- 
verence, the brutality, and the complete failure of 
military discipline of the troops of Bourbon and Freunds- 
berg, we cannot but be amazed at the good behaviour of 
the Gothic heretics and barbarians who sacked Rome in 
A.D. 410. 


of laws forbidding Christians to relapse into the old religion. Dill, 
Roman Society, p. 33. This explains the minuteness of detail with which 
Augustine in the De Civitate Dei denounces the ancient superstitions. 
He was contending with a living faith, 

1. ‘Truculentissimas et saeuissimas mentes ille (Deus) terruit, ille 
fraenauit, ille mirabiliter temperauit.” De Civ. Dez, 1. 7. 

2. Gregorovius, Rome in the Middle Ages, bk. 1v., ch. xvi. 


CH. XIX.] - ROME AND PELAGIUS. §25 


ee The Pelagian controversy which began 
sm. during the pontificate of Innocent, came 
under the cognisance of the Roman See in his days 
and in those of his successors, Zosimus (a.D. 417—418), 
and Boniface (418—422). The theological points of 
this dispute have already been noticed; and it will 
be sufficient to state the chief synodical acts relating 
to Pelagius and his friend Celestius. A council at 
Carthage held in a.p. 411 or 412 had condemned the 
opinions of Celestius; but he and Pelagius reopened the 
question in the East. The case was heard by John of 
Jerusalem at Bethlehem in 415, and by a synod at Lydda 
(Diospolis). As Pelagius was acquitted, Augustine wrote 
to Innocent explaining that the Palestinian bishops had 
been ill informed: and the sentence of the Church of 
Africa was renewed at a provincial council at Milevis 
(A.D. 416), at which Augustine was present. A synodal 
letter, together with an appeal by five bishops including 
Augustine, was sent to Innocent, who agreed to condemn 
the doctrines of Pelagius.! Celestius and Pelagius, 
however, sent statements of their faith to Innocent just 
before his death; and Celestius arrived in Rome to 
lay the case before the new pontiff, Zosimus. On their 
consenting to condemn all that his predecessor had 
pronounced to be heretical the Pope completely acquitted 
both of them.? The Africans were not however to be 
baulked ; and in a.p. 418 a Great Synod held at Carthage 
condemned Pelagianism. An edict against the heresy 
was issued by Honorius, and the Pope had no alternative 
but to confirm the decree of the African council, which 
he did in his Epistola Tvactatoria. ‘The success of the 
Roman See in previous disputes concerning doctrine seems 
to aggravate her failure in the matter of Pelagianism.? 


1. Of this correspondence Harnack says, ** The Pope had, perhaps, 
never yet received petitions from a North African synod which laid such 
_ gtress on the importance of the Roman Chair. Innocent sought to forge 
the iron while it was hot.” ist. Dogma, vol. v., p. 182, Eng. Transl. 
Innocent, 4/4. XXX.—XXXIII, Augustine, ff. CLXXXI.—CLXXXIV. 

2. Celestius used most submissive language to Zosimus, and Pelagius’ 
confession of faith was drawn up with great skill. Hahn, Syméole, § 209. 
Harnack, of. czt., p. 185. 

3. Anattempt has been made to shew that Zosimus’ change of front 
was independent of the Edict. Harnack, of. cit., p. 186. Dr. Bright 


526 MISTAKES OF ZOSIMUS. [CH. XIX. 


Short as was the rule of Zosimus, 
Pontificateof it was important for other reasons than 
are “ti7_-418, the case of Pelagius. Two other affairs, 
connected the one with Gaul, the other 

with Africa, occupied this Pope’s attention. 

The See of Arles, at this time occupied by Patroclus, 
laid claim to the primacy of Gaul ; but the neighbouring 
metropolitans of Vienne, Narbonne and Marseilles 
resisted its pretensions, and succeeded in getting them 
rejected by a synod held at Turin. Proculus, Bishop 
of Marsailler, as metropolitan of Narbonensis secunda, 
asserted his independence by consecrating Lazarus, a 
friend of Heros, to the see of Aquae Sextiae (Aix). 
Heros had been put into the primatial throne of 
Arles by the usurper Constantine; but had been thrust 
out to make room for Patroclus. Zosimus, a strong 
supporter of Patroclus, confirmed his authority over 
the whole of Gaul, and gave him special privileges 
in proof of his good will. Heros and Lazarus therefore 
were exiles in Palestine at the time of Pelagius’ visit, 
and exerted themselves as his principal accusers. It is 
therefore hardly to be wondered at that Zosimus 
regarded the charges of heresy made at Rome against 
Pelagius as coming from a somewhat tainted source. 
The hasty action of the Pope in pronouncing Pelagius 
innocent may possibly be imputed to personal prejudice 
against his mie accusers. eouet Temin 

ste osimus was also involved in a 
Core Ot ees dispute with the prelates of Africa on 
a question of discipline. Apiarius, a presbyter of 
Sicca in Mauretania, had been excommunicated by his 
bishop for grave moral offences. He appealed to Rome, 
and Zosimus pronounced his acquittal, ordering him to 
be restored to his office. But the African episcopate 
resented this attempt at interference in the discipline of 
their Church; and at their General Council at Carthage 


(Anti-Pelagian Treatises of St. Augustine, p. xl.) says, ** This mistake on 
the part of Zosimus has no direct bearing on the claim of Papal infallibility, 
for he erred on the question of fact, whether certain persons did or did not 
hold the faith which he himself held ; but still, to use exact and measured 


language, his was a very hasty judgment in a matter touching the very 
centre of the Faith.” 


CH, XIX. ] A DISPUTED ELECTION. 527 


on May 1st, 418, a canon was passed forbidding 
“presbyters, deacons and inferior clerics to appeal 
against their bishops to a court ‘beyond the sea’.” 
Zosimus next sent a commission to Carthage, consisting 
of a bishop and two presbyters, with a written in- 
struction (commonitovium). A small synod of the 
neighbouring bishops was summoned by Aurelius, bishop 
of Carthage, to discuss the question of appeals to Rome. 
The Pope based the right to hear them on a canon 
which he believed to be Nicene, but which the African 
bishops denied to be among the acts of the Council. 
Requests were made for copies of the Nicene canons to 
St. Cyril at Alexandria and to Atticus at Constantinople. 
As a matter of fact, Zosimus had mistaken the fifth 
canon of Sardica (a.p. 343) for a decree of Nicaea. 
Apiarius was however provisionally reinstated as a 
presbyter; but in a.p. 426 a further investigation was 
held; and Apiarius made confession that he was guilty 
of the crimes for which he had been originally deposed.’ 
The case raised important points in Canon law; and it 
is the misfortune of Zosimus that during a two years 
pontificate he proved himself in the wrong in a point of 
doctrine and also in a matter of discipline, and provided 
a case both against the infallibility and the authority of 
the Roman See. | 
The death of Zosimus, in December 
Boniface and 418, was followed by a disputed election. 
One faction of the clergy and people 

elected Eulalius, Archdeacon of Rome; whilst the 
majority, as was said, chose the presbyter Boniface. The 
praefect of the city, Aurelius Anicius Symmachus, re- 
ported to Honorius in favour of Eulalius, and the Em- 
peror ordered him to be installed as Pope. The people, 
however, rose in favour of Boniface, who occupied the 
church of St. Paul outside the walls; whilst his rival 
held the church and palace of Lateran. Scenes of 
anarchy and bloodshed, such as had characterised the 
schism between Damasus and Ursicinus, followed: and 
ultimately the case was referred to a council summoned 
by command of Honorius. The matter, however, was 


1. Hefele, Councils, §§ 120, 122, Milman, Latin Christianity, 
vol. I., p. 240. 


528 ROME AND THE EAST. _ [cu. xix. 


decided, not by the council, but by the conduct of 
Eulalius, who, in defiance of the imperial commands, 
celebrated Easter at Rome. Boniface accordingly 
became Pope; but died, after a brief pontificate, in 
A.D. 422. The whole incident exemplifies the authority 
which the Emperor already exercised in confirming the 
choice of the Roman clergy and people, and also the 
firm determination of the Romans, who accepted the 
appointment of all civil magistrates without demur, 
not to have a bishop thrust upon them against their 
will. 
Hitherto we have seen the Roman 
The Roman See bishops chiefly in relation to the Churches 
controversies. Of Gaul and Africa and Spain. ‘The 
interest in Eastern affairs was chiefly 
centred in Illyricum, over which they claimed juris- 
diction, delegating their authority to the bishop of 
Thessalonica. Now, however, we have to observe their 
action in relation to the controversies which were 
agitating the Churches of the East. The Nestorian and 
Eutychian disputes demonstrated the power and wisdom 
of the Roman Church in the fifth century. Her position 
made her the arbiter between the rival factions in the 
distracted Churches of Egypt, Syria, Asia Minor and 
Constantinople. Situated far from the scene of their 
rivalries, the Roman pontiffs could the better decide 
between heated disputants, because their own flock was 
undisturbed by the questions at issue. In the great 
theological controversies the decision of a General 
Council was in the East a signal for a fresh outburst 
of embittered dispute, whilst in the West all interest in 
the question subsided when once it had been settled 
by authority. 
fe as Thus in the case of Nestorius, 
(A.D. 422--439), Celestine I. (a.p. 422—432) and Sixtus IIL. 
Sixtus Ill. | (A.D. 432—440) pursued a consistent policy 
(t D. aoe ~ 240). of hostility to the Patriarch in his dispute 
Churches, With St. Cyril; and Sixtus III. marked 
the triumph of orthodoxy over the error of 
Nestorius by the erection and decoration of perhaps the 
first church in Rome dedicated to the Blessed Virgin. 
Sixtus restored the basilica of Liberius, and dedicated it 


CH. xIX.) COSTLY CHURCHES, 529 


to the mother of God.’ The church, now known as 
Sta. Maria Maggiore, still preserves the ancient mosaics— 
the only ones in Rome which illustrate the development 
of Christianity in a series of Biblical histories. Sixtus 
endowed his church with lavish gifts, following the 
growing custom of making the Christian sanctuaries 
rival their pagan predecessors in the costliness of their 
adornment. In vain had Jerome protested, in his letter 
to Nepotianus on his forsaking the military for the 
clerical profession, against men building churches of 
marble with gilded ceilings and jewelled altars on the 
plea that the temple at Jerusalem was thus adorned, 
forgetting that “ our Lord by His poverty has consecrated 
the poverty of His House’”’.2 The Liber Pontificalis 
extols each succeeding Pope for the zeal shewn by him ° 
in giving costly presents to the churches of Rome. 
The most remarkable circumstance 


Personal | connected with the Roman See in the 
obscurity of : : ’ ; 
Popes. period under review is the rapid growth 


of its influence despite the comparative 
obscurity of the individuals who filled it. Among 
the early Popes there is hardly a single commanding 
personality. The influence of the bishops of Rome 
depended less on the merits or ability of the pontiff 
than on traditions of his throne. The very fact that, 
save Clement, no successor of St. Peter had taken his 
place among the Fathers of the Church, that Rome could 
not boast of an Athanasius, a Chrysostom, or a Cyril, 
enhanced rather than detracted from the dignity of the 
See; since, whereas all these eminent men had been 
engaged in the arena of controversy, the Popes had 
occupied’ the more secure position of umpires. . At last, 
however, in Leo (a.p. 440—461) one of the greatest men 
of his age presided over the Church of Rome. 
Leo may be justly termed the first 
ko aot Pope who combined the qualities of a 
politician with those of a bishop. At the 
time of his election he was absent on a mission to 
reconcile Aetius, the great Western general, to a rival 


1. Gregorovius, Rome in the Middle Ages, bk. 1., ch. V., § 2. 
2. £p. LIl., § 10. 
LL 


530 ELECTION OF St. LEO, | [cH. xIx, 


named Albinus; and throughout his pontificate he 
appears from time to time as the representative of the 
Roman people. It was not to the generals and council- 
lors of Galla Placidia that the Romans turned in their 
distress, but to their bishop. When Attila invaded Italy 
in A.D. 451, when Gaiseric was about to pillage Rome in 
A.D. 455, all men looked to Leo for counsel and assistance. 

A really strong character seldom 
shrinks from responsibility, especially 
when prepared by experience to exercise it. Leo, a 
Roman by upbringing if not by birth, was possibly 
the acolyte employed in carrying the correspondence 
of Pope Zosimus to Africa, in which case he must 
have had personal communication with St. Augustine. 
Under Celestine he was raised to the dignity of 
Archdeacon of Rome, a position of immense influence; 
and in the time of Sixtus III. we find him taking 
an active part against Julian, bishop of Eclanum, 
who combined fervent piety and unsparing liberality 
with a sympathy for Pelagianism. Versed as he was 
in the business of the great Roman Church, and imbued 
with its spirit of government, Leo had no hesitation 
in assuming its leadership; if with a due appreciation 
of the responsibility he was undertaking, yet without 
reluctance. He recognises a proof of Divine goodness 
in the unanimity shewn by the Romans in electing him: 
The opening words of his sermon on the day of his con- 
secration are words of praise. “It is” he says “a sign 
not of a modest, but of an ungrateful mind, to keep 
silence on the kindnesses of God ; and it is very meet to 
begin our duty as consecrated pontiff with the sacrifices 
of the Lord’s praise; because in our humility the Lord 
has been mindful of us.” ? | 

Leo betrays no sign of doubt regarding the assured 
position of the bishop of Rome. He is unquestionably 
the successor of St. Peter, the vicegerent of Christ. 
As Petex is above all the Apostles, so the Roman pontiff 


Early life. 


1. Milman, Aestory of Latin Christianity, vol. 1., p. 164.  ** His 
long and weary life was prolonged thirty years after his exile. . . . The 
last act of the proscribed heretic was to sacrifice all he had to relieve the 
poor in a grievous famine.” 

2 Leo Magn., Hom. 1. 


ma a 


CH. XIX.) THE POPE St. PETER’S SUCCESSOR. 531 


is set over all bishops. His right of superiority is in 
€very Case uncompromisingly asserted. 
Dioscorus of Alexandria is reminded 
gee aetersa, at his accession to the bishopric that he 
authority. presides over the Church of St. Mark, the 
follower of St. Peter! Flavian of Con- 
stantinople is blamed for not at once communicating 
the sentence against Eutyches to Rome. Anatolius, 
St.. Flavian’s successor, is constantly warned not to 
presume to an equality with the Pope, and is asked 
to send a confession of his faith, that Leo may judge 
whether or no he ought to be acknowledged by the 
Apostolic See. The bishops of Mauretania Caesariensis 
in Africa are given precise directions as to how they are 
to act in regard to ordinations, creation of sees, treat- 
ment of individuals, and appeals to Rome.‘ The Siciliar 
bishops are warned against alienating Church property, 
and instructed as to the proper times for administering 
the sacrament of baptism.® The Spaniards are com- 
manded to be more vigilant, and are directed how 
Priscillianism can best be refuted.6 Illyricum is re- 
garded as peculiarly under the dominion of the Pope; 
and Anastasius, bishop of Thessalonica, is made his 
vicar, with authority over all the bishops of the 
province.’ When, however, Anastasius used force to 
summon Atticus, bishop of Old Epirus, to Thessalonica, 
he is sternly taken to task by Leo for his arbitrary 
and unjust conduct. Even if Atticus had committed 
a serious crime, Leo declares that the metropolitan 
should not have acted until he had taken advice from 
the Holy See.® Indeed it is impossible in reading Leo’s 
correspondence not to notice that anyone who appeals 
to him against his ecclesiastical superiors is sure of a 
patient hearing. 
Even Eutyches, who was the first to 
Eutyches a8 82 report to Rome his condemnation at Con- 
app stantinople by bishop Flavian, met witha 
certain sympathy from Leo. Considering how thoroughly 


S.. £f, Vil. 24 0. XXII 

3. Lp. LXIX., ad Theodosium Augustum. Ep. UXXX., ad Anatolium 
the Ep, KAY, b. 2p KVL 6. Ep. Xv. 

q. Ep. Vi. Bio ite BN 


LL 2 


532 St. HILARY OF ARLES. _ [cH xIx. 


the Pope was opposed to the heresy, it is surprising 
how much tenderness for the person of the heresiarch he 
displays. Eutyches is described by Leo as foolish, un- 
instructed, ignorant, but there is no bitterness manifested 
against him as a man; and even when Leo is most 
strenuous in condemnation of his doctrine, he never 
forgets to suggest that, if Eutyches will only repent, 
-he is to be pardoned.* 
{ But it is very different when the 
The pmeey authority of the Holy See is disputed. 
"Leo tells the bishops of Gaul that as 
our Lord has given to St. Peter the principal charge 
as chief of the Apostles, He desires that all His gifts 
should flow to the rest of the body from him as from 
the head. No one therefore who secedes from Peter’s 
solid rock has part or lot in the Divine mystery. It 
is consequently horrible to learn that the occupant 
of the chief see of Gaul has presumed to subject the 
churches of that country to his authority, in order that 
he himself might not be subject to the blessed Peter. 
When called in question for his arbitrary actions, this 
metropolitan had given vent to utterances such as 
“no layman should make and no priest listen to”. In 
another case the same offender, in the exercise of 
metropolitan rights granted to his predecessors by 
one Pope but withdrawn by his successor, had by his 
harshness nearly caused the death of a bishop whom he 
had supplanted, by consecrating another to administer 
his see. ‘The activity displayed in visiting his*province 
seems to Leo to savour of an ambition to emulate a 
courier rather than to act like a priest. His violence is 
severely reprehended, and the Pope warns the bishops 
of Gaul not to be misled by the customary untruthfulness 
of their would-be metropolitan. Finally, Leo orders 
that in future the primacy of Gaul should be entrusted 
to a certain Leontius, who seems to have had no 
qualification except that of seniority. It is not a little 
surprising to learn that this arbitrary, unjust, arrogant 
and untruthful ecclesiastic was none other than St. 


_X. Zp. xxviti. (The Tome). See also Leo’s correspondence with 
Julian, bishop of Cos, Zp. xxxIv. 


2. £p. VIII., cap. 3 3. fp. VIII, cap. 5. 


CH. XIX,] LEO AND IMPERIAL LAWS. 533 


Hilary of Arles, one of the brightest lights of the 
Gallican Church. ‘He was a man”, says Bishop Gore, 
and his encomium is not excessive, “of pure and lowly 
holiness, a zealous evangelist, simple and ascetic in 
his life; loving order and discipline, but hating op- 
pression and fearless in rebuking it..... Altogether, 
the fifth century does not present a nobler and more 
beautiful character.”! Hilary had crossed the Alps to 
plead his cause at Rome against a Gallican bishop 
named Celidonius, who, after having been deposed, had 
been reinstated by the Pope; but Leo refused to re-open 
the case, and actually ordered Hilary to be closely 
guarded to prevent his escape from Rome. However, 
he evaded the vigilance of his gaolers, and returned 
to Arles, saving himself, as Leo ungenerously remarks, 
“by a disgraceful flight”’. 

The conduct of Leo on this occasion is in keeping 
with the subsequent action of his successors. To the 
heretic, regarded as an individual, the most orthodox 
Pope could shew a certain generosity; but towards 
those who contested their authority they were im- 
placable.? In the case of Eutyches, Leo could behave 
as a Christian pastor, condemning the error of the 
heretic, yet doing all in his power to bring him to 
repentance. But to St. Hilary, who dared to question 
the authority of Rome, no consideration could be shewn. 
“He has” says Leo “on more than one occasion 
brought upon himself condemnation by his rash and 
insolent words, and he is now to be kept, by our com- 
mand, in accordance with the clemency of the Apostolic 
_ See, to his own city alone.’”® 

Not content with depriving Hilary and 

Fower or Leo the See of Arles of all metropolitical 
authority, Leo also obtained an imperial 

decree confirming the papal sentence: an example of 
the influence exerted by him over Valentinian III. The 
difference of the power of the Church in Rome and in 


Gore, Leo the Great, p. 106. 

See Milman, History of Latin Christianity, bk. v1., ch. it 
Ep. Viul., cap, 7. 

Leo Magn., £f. XI. 


$Yyn 


534 RANK OF CONSTANTINOPLE.  [cu. xix. 


Constantinople is truly remarkable; as Leo found to 
be the case when he took part in the controversies of 
the Eastern Empire. With the single exception of 
Aetius, no one held so great a position in Italy and 
Gaul as Leo; for if the General has been called “the 
last of the Romans’’, the pontiff equally deserves the 
honour of being styled the first of the great Popes. 
Galla Placidia and her feeble son Valentinian III. 
granted Leo all the power over the Church he desired ; 
it was for him to suggest, and for them to legislate. 
It is true that Valentinian in 452 enacted a law 
restraining the civil jurisdiction of bishops, which 
Cardinal Baronius considers sufficiently impious to 
have provoked the invasion of Italy by the Huns in 
A.D. 452, and the murder of Valentinian by the out- 
raged senator Maximus in 455;' but the constitution 
supporting Leo against Hilary ought surely, in the 
eyes of a zealous advocate of Papal power, to atone 
even for an anti-episcopal rescript. Valentinian declares 
that it is for the good of the whole Church that all 
should recognise the Pope as their ruler; and no bishop 
in Gaul is to presume to make innovations or to attempt 
anything without his sanction. The provincial magis- 
trate (moderator) is to compel any bishop who is — 
recalcitrant to obey a summons to Rome. ‘The corre- 
spondence of Valentinian and his mother Placidia 
with their relatives at Constantinople, during the 
Eutychian controversy, repeats the claims of Leo in 
asserting the very highest position for the See of 
Rome.? | 
But Leo found even the pious Theodosius II. far less 
amenable than the Western colleagues of that emperor. 
Demet, eo Every emperor in Constantinople con- 
Constantinople, Sidered it incumbent upon him to maintain 
The XXVIJIth the right inherent in his office of summon- 
eaten fe ing councils and appointing their place of 
‘ meeting. Leo pleaded in vain for a gather- 
ing of bishops in Italy to decide the question raised by 


1. Baronius, Am. 452, § 52. Tillemont, Azst. des Hmpereurs, 
Vi. 245, who takes a milder view of this unimportant rescript. Dzct, Chr. 
Siog., art. ‘Leo’, vol. I11., p. 655a. 

2. Leo Magn., Zp. LV., LVI. 


CH. XIX.] LEO AND ANATOLIUS, 355 


Eutyches. Theodosius assembled the bishops at Ephesus 
in A.D. 449, and Marcian and Pulcheria called them to 
meet at Chalcedon in a.p. 451. In the case of the latter 
council Leo was unable to prevent its being held, though 
he had declared it to be unnecessary and even undesirable. 
But the XXVIIIth canon of Chalcedon afforded a final 
proof that the Emperor claimed the right of acting 
without regard to the wishes of the Pope; for there can 
be no question as to this canon being made at the 
instigation of Marcian and Pulcheria. It declares that 
the Fathers gave the primacy to Rome because it was 
the imperial city (ua 7d Bacidevew tHv ToAW éxelvny), 
and that for this reason “the hundred and fifty most 
godly bishops”’ at the Second General Council in a.p. 381 
had given equal honour to New Rome, considering that 
as it was, like Old Rome, the seat of the Empire and the 
Senate, it ought also to be magnified in its ecclesiastical 
position and be considered only second in rank to the 
elder capital. The canon of Chalcedon proceeded to 
define the jurisdiction of the See of Constantinople, 
giving to the Patriarch the sole right of ordaining all the 
metropolitans in the imperial dioceses of Pontus, Asia, 
and Thrace, as well as the bishops engaged in missionary 
work in those countries (ét 8€ Kat tovs év trois BapBapt- 
Kols TOV Tpoetpnucvav Stotxnoewv). The title of Arch- 
bishop, hitherto rarely used, is further given by the 
Council to the occupant of the See of Constantinople. 
The Council respectfully notified their 
decision to Leo, admitting however that 
it had been arrived at despite the protests of his legates, 
and requesting him to assent to the canon. They 
asserted that, after all, nothing had been done beyond 
ratifying the decree of the Second General Council of the 
hundred and fifty holy Fathers who met at Constantin- 
ople in the time of the great Theodosius. But Leo was 
not to be appeased by fair words. He wrote to Marcian 
denouncing the self-seeking of Anatolius, bishop of Con- 
stantinople, and reminding the Emperor that New Rome 
can never be, like the Old, a see of apostolical origin. 
To Pulcheria he writes that the canons of Nicaea ought 


Leo’s indignation. 


1. Zp. CIV. 


536 LEO AND CHALCEDON. [CH. XIX. 


never to be set aside, and that the attempt to set Con- 
stantinople above Alexandria and Antioch, to which the 
6th canon of Nicaea had given the second and third 
places after Rome, would only cause strife and confusion 
in the Church.! To Anatolius, Leo declares that the 
decree of the Council of Constantinople in a.p. 381 is 
worthless, because it had never been referred for confirm- 
ation to the Apostolic See.? It is to the credit of Leo 
that though he rebuked even his confidential friend and 
correspondent, Julian, bishop of Cos, for his weakness 
in having assented to the objectionable canon, he shewed 
much anxiety that Aetius, archdeacon of Constantinople, 
the prime mover in making the proposal, should receive 
justice at the hands of Anatolius.* Two years after the 
close of the Council of Chalcedon, Anatolius, at the 
suggestion of Marcian, wrote in terms of humble apology 
to Leo, and his expressions of regret were accepted by 
the Pope, with a somewhat sarcastic remark that he 
would have pardoned Anatolius more readily had he not 
been so anxious to lay the blame of the canon on his 
clergy rather than on himself. The primacy of Con- 
stantinople, though not uncontested, seems to have been 
subsequently recognised in the East; and Leo had to be 
content with a somewhat illusory victory. 

recone But in the more important matter of 

‘the decision of the theological controversy 
Leo enjoyed a complete triumph. At the Latvocinium 
his Tome had been disregarded and the famous Contra- 
dicituy of his deacon Hilary had been passed by un- 
noticed. Dioscorus had at this council to all appearance 
dictated the creed of Christendom ; and, confident in his 
supremacy, had presumed to excommunicate the Pope. 
At Chalcedon Leo’s Tome was declared to be the faith 
of the Fathers, though not till it had been discussed 
and the scruples of the Illyrian bishops in regard to it 
had been satisfied. ‘‘ Peter has spoken by Leo; this Cyril 
taught. Anathema to him who believes otherwise.” 
For the first time the Roman pontiff, himself ignorant 
of Greek, settled a theological controversy at a Greek- 
speaking council. 


1. Zp. CV., cap. 2 2. Zp. cvi... 3 Hp. CX. 4 Fp. CAXKY, 


ae i ES li 


CH. X1X.] THE DISTRACTED EAST. 537 


The Tome of Leo is a judicial summing up of a 
hotly debated case. ‘There is no attempt to explain the 
mystery of the Two Natures; Leo simply set forward 
what Scripture and the Creed of the Church teaches. 
The tone throughout is dignified; the language, forcible 
in its antitheses, occasionally becomes even eloquent. 
The error of Nestorius is made as evident as is that of 
Eutyches, and the Two Natures of the Godhead and 
Manhood of our Lord declared to remain unconfusedly 
and inseparably in His one Person. “ In it,’ says Bishop 
Gore, “with his other dogmatic epistles, did the master- 
pen of Leo lay down for the Church the doctrine of the 
Incarnation with a consummate regard for the equal 
reality of the Divine and Human natures in this one 
Person of Christ, the Word.” 

Valuable, however, as Leo’s Tome was 
aged in defining the Creed of the Church, it 

East. is questionable whether the effect of his 
2 interference in the controversy was entirely 
beneficial. The hard legalism of Leo’s mind was opposed 
to any discussion of what had once been decided. In 
the Arian controversy the definition of the Council of 
Nicaea was openly discussed and disputed for nearly 
sixty years; and when it was finally accepted by the 
Church, it had been proved to be the only possible 
solution of the point at issue. The reasonableness 
displayed by Athanasius, the desire to unite himself to 
those who agreed with him in spirit though they 
differed as to the language in which their views should 
be expressed, helped to heal the breach between the 
different factions of the distracted Church. But Leo 
and his successors in the Apostolic See were entirely 
incapable of a sympathetic insight into the scruples of 
those who differed from their point of view. Any 
attempt to re-open the question after the publication of 
the Tome was regarded by him with horror; and when 
the Council of Chalcedon had pronounced its decision, 
it was regarded as blasphemy even to discuss it.2 Asa 
result, the divisions of the Eastern Church were made 


1. Gore, St. Leo the Great, p. 70. 
2. £p. CLVI., ad Leonem Augustum, 


538 THE PRIMACY OF PETER. [CH. XIX. 


permanent ; and many, who might have returned to the 
fold had a bridge been made for them to do so, were for 
ever excluded. The indignation with which the very 
suggestion, in the Henoticon of Zeno, of a modification 
of the Chalcedonian doctrine was received at Rome,} 
shews the unwillingness of the Papacy to make allow- 
ance for the subtler minds of the Greek-speaking 
Christians, and foreshadows the great division between 
the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. 

As regards the position of the Roman See, Leo is 
perfectly explicit. Alike in practice and in theory he 
upholds the supremacy of St. Peter, of whom he declares 
himself to be the unworthy representatives It was 
customary for Leo on his.‘birth-day’, z.e. the anniversary 
of his consecration, to address the people and clergy 
of Rome together with the bishops who had assembled 
for the occasion; and the main topic of his discourse 
seems to have been the dignity of the See of Rome as 
the seat of St. Peter. The whole Church would, he 
says, always find Peter in Peter’s See.2 Peter was the 
first to confess Christ ; he was ordained first before all 
the Apostles, that “from his being called the Rock, from 
his being pronounced the Foundation, from his being 
constituted the Doorkeeper of the Kingdom of Heaven, 
from his being set an umpire to bind and to loose, 
whose judgments shall retain their validity in Heaven— 
from all these mystical titles we might know the nature 
of his association with Christ.’* Not only is Peter 
above all the Apostles; he is also the channel through 
which all grace is communicated to them and to the 
Church. It is not the secular greatness of Rome, but 
the fact of Peter fixing his seat there, that makes her 
the first Church in the world.4. The Council of Nicaea, 
according to Leo, who, like Zosimus, confounds the 
Sardican canons with those of the great council, confirms 
the unalterable supremacy of Rome. 


1. The Henoticon, published by the Emperor Zeno in A.D. 482, 
caused a schism between Rome and Constantinople from A.D. 484 to 519. 
Felix III. excommunicated the Patriarch Acacius, who had suggested it. 

2. Sermo Il. 

3. Sermo Ill. 

4. Lp. LIV., cap. 3. 


ae a a a at, el Ga 


CH. XIX,] LEO NO INNOVATOR. 539 


Uncompromising as is his theory of the primacy 
of the Roman Church, Leo shews himself solicitous 
for popular rights in the different Churches to which he 
writes. He desires the elections to bishoprics to be 
free and uncorrupt, he defends Churches against un- 
warrantable assumptions of authority by metropolitans. 
But Leo has scant sympathy with the diversities of 
practice. All Churches should follow the norm of 
Rome. ‘“ You could never have fallen into this fault” 
he tells the bishops of Sicily “if you had taken the 
whole of your observances from the source whence you 
derive your consecration to the episcopate; and if the 
See of the blessed Apostle Peter, which is the mother of 
your priestly dignity, were the recognised teacher of 
Church-method.” <A passion for uniformity in both 
doctrine and practice is throughout his correspondence 
characteristic of Leo. 

But Leo is at least consistent in his stern adherence 
to Scripture and tradition. Excessive as the claims to 
universal domination made on behalf of the Church of 
Rome in the fifth century may appear to those outside 
her communion, she had, at least up to that time, 
retained much of the simplicity of the first ages of the 
Faith. No festival in honour of the Blessed Virgin was 
observed in Rome till the seventh century.!| In an age 
when ceremonies were multiplying and increasing in 
splendour, the Roman Mass and Ordinal were remarkable 
for their austere simplicity.? Leo’s predecessor Celestine 
advises the clergy not to wear a dress to distinguish 
them from the laity; but to be conspicuous for their 
conduct rather than from their habit.2 The sermons of 
Leo, terse and simple, suggestive of a praetor laying 
down the law rather than of the eloquent preacher, are 
almost exclusively about our Lord.* He is silent in 
regard both to the merits of the Saints and the value of 
their relics. His tone is in many respects rather that of 
the first or second century than of the fifth. 


x. Duchesne, Christian Worship, p. 270, Eng. Tr. 
2. Duchesne, of. czf., p. 352. 
3. Dict. Chr. Biog., art. § Coelestinus’. 
. Milman, story of Latin Christianity, bk. 11., ch.'‘iv. Gore, 
St. Leo the Great. 


540 LEO’S GREATNESS. | [CH. XIX. 


To the controversialist the long pontificate of Leo 
the Great has an important bearing on the claims of 
Rome at the present day. But the rise of the Roman 
See and the great claims already made on its behalf by the 
middle of the fifth century are facts which the historian 
may accept without discussion. ‘To one who believes 
that the supremacy which Rome attained in the Middle 
Ages was, like its subsequent decline, part of the Provi- 
dential direction of the Church, the claims and success 
of Leo present no difficulties. At the very moment at 
which the whole fabric of the Western Empire was 


threatened with dissolution, the Roman Church arose in 


her might, and, with her splendid tradition and the 
record of an almost blameless past, undertook the 
guidance of mankind. In Leo she possessed a com- 
manding personality who did not shrink from the 
responsibility of his position. In his faults and in his 
virtues he was the incarnation of ancient Rome. If he 
was lacking in sympathy, and perhaps also in generosity, 
he was full of courage, uprightness, and consciousness of 
a great mission. He failed in some respects, notably in 
his treatment of the Eastern Church: but he at least 
succeeded in leaving upon his age the impression that 
the Bishop of Rome could prove a leader in one of the 
most disastrous periods of the world’s history. An iron 
man in an iron age, Leo was well fitted to prepare the 
Church to survive the crash of a falling world. | 


LM OAS After the death of Leo'the authority 
Western Empire, Of the Roman Empire in Italy, Gaul, and 
Spain waned with startling rapidity. In 

A.D. 455 Valentinian III. was put to death, and the 
senator Maximus succeeded him. He reigned, however, 
only for three months, being slain by the infuriated mob 
when Gaiseric took the city. The next emperor, Avitus, 
was deposed by Ricimer, now the real master of the 
empire ; but his life was spared and he was provided for 
by being consecrated a bishop. He died soon after his 
deposition. In a.p. 457 Ricimer, now ‘ Patrician’ of 
Rome, placed Majorian on the imperial throne, a man of 
virtue and capacity, who, however, was put to death by 
the Patrician in a.p. 463. The next emperor, Libius 


ee ee ee ea a eT, ae 


CH. xIxX.]) END OF THE WESTERN EMPIRE. 541 


Severus, like his predecessors a puppet in the hands of 
Ricimer, reigned from a.p. 461 to 465. Fora year and 
eight months there was no emperor, till in a.p. 467 
Anthemius, the son-in-law of Marcian the husband of 
Pulcheria, was raised to the purple. Anthemius tried to 
throw off the yoke of Ricimer, and was slain on the 
tith July, 472. Five weeks later, Ricimer, who for 
sixteen years had been the real ruler in the Western 
Empire, died suddenly. During the next three years 
there were no less than three emperors, Olybrius, » 
Glycerius, and Julius Nepos. ‘The first died a natural 
death; the second was deposed and made bishop of 
Salona; whilst Nepos fled to Dalmatia and, according to 
one authority, retired into private life. The last emperor 
was a youth who, by a strange fatality, bore the name 
of Romulus, and was known to posterity as Romulus 
Augustulus. He was raised to the purple on Oct. 31, 475, 
and on Sept. 4, 476, deposed by Odovacar. The ensigns 
of royalty were sent to Constantinople, and the emperor 
Zeno was asked to bestow on the barbarian the dignity 
of ‘Patrician’ and to entrust him with the care of 
Italy. Thus, almost unnoticed, was the imperial dignity 
for a time withdrawn from Western Europe. 


CHAPTER XxX. 


ORIENTAL CHRISTIANITY AND THE CHURCHES - 
OUTSIDE THE EMPIRE. 


A uistory of the Christian Church to the close of the 
fourth General Council is incomplete if it takes no notice 
of the progress of the Faith in countries beyond the fron- 
tiers of the Roman empire and among peoples employing 
neither the Greek nor the Latin language. The Versions 
of Holy Scripture in existence in the fifth century are 
alone sufficient to attest the missionary zeal of the 
Christian world, and completely to dissipate any con- 
ception of a Church confined either to the Roman 
empire or to the two classical tongues. 

ers The Christianity of the nearer East 

Christianity. WaS primarily Syriac speaking; that 
language being one of the most im- 
portant means of diffusing the Faith. An extensive 


literature and several versions of the New Testament 


shew how necessary it is to pay careful attention to 
this venerable branch of the Church. 

Under Trajan the Roman empire extended as far as 
the Persian Gulf, and included the whole district 
between the Tigris and Euphrates. But by a.p. 297 all 
the southern plains embraced by these rivers had passed 
into the hands of the Persians, and the Roman frontier 
was at Circesium on the Euphrates and Singara on the 
Tigris; the provinces of the Empire being Euphratensis 
on the southern bank of the Euphrates, containing the 
city of Samosata, and on the northern bank Osroene, 
which took its name from Urfa, the ancient appellation 
of Edessa. North of this was the province of Meso- 
potamia,: containing the cities of Amida (Diabeker), 
Singara, and Nisibis. At the death of Julian, A.D 363, 
Nisibis and a considerable territory was ceded to Persia. 


| 
1 
: 
i 
q 
; 
a 


CH. XX.] | EDESSA., 543 


These border provinces, together with the country 
extending to the Gulf, were the home of Syriac Christi- 
anity, the starting point being Edessa, which till a.p. 216 
was governed by a native prince, 

The conversion of the king of Edessa forms one of 
the earliest romances of Christian missions, and has been 
already mentioned. According to the Doctrine of Addai, 
Judas-Thomas, the Apostle, sent Addai, one of the seventy, 
to Edessa, where he was apparently favourably received 
by the Jewish community, and healed and converted 
Abgar Ukkama—Abgar the Black (d. a.p. 50). From the 
lists of the bishops it has, however, been inferred that the 
church of Edessa did not receive a regular organization 
till the second century, and that the prince who then 
shewed himself favourable to the Christians, if he was 
not actually a Christian, was Abgar IX., a contemporary 
of Septimius Severus (A.D. 193211). As early as A.D. 201 
we know that a church had been built at Edessa, for it 
was destroyed by a flood of the river Daisan. 

Whatever may be the date of the foundation of 
the Syrian church of the East, it possessed many features 
of its own distinct from the Christianity of the Roman 
empire. It was in the first place a far more ascetic 
community than any other orthodox church. Like the 
Marcionites, who continued their existence for three or 
more centuries, the Syrian Christians discouraged, if 
they did not forbid, the marriage of baptized persons, all 
of whom were supposed to live in a state of absolute 
continence. The Gospel in use was at first not that of 
the four Evangelists, but the Diatessavon of Tatian the 
Encratite. 


1. But, despite Tertullian’s denunciations of Marcion’s prohibition to 
his followers to marry, he says himself that unmarried persons had better 
defer baptism till they have made up their minds not to marry. ‘‘Non 
minore de causa innupti quoque procrastinandi, in quibus temptatio 
praeparata est tam uirginibus per maturitatem quam uiduis per uacationem, 
donec aut nubant aut continentia corroborentur.” De Baptzsmo, cap. 17. 
See Burkitt, Har/y Eastern Christianity, p. 125 ff, who bases his 
contention that marriage was forbidden to baptized persons on Aphraates, 
Hom. vit., § 20. But the passage in Aphraates appears to be capable of 
another interpretation, and the writings of St. Ephraim do not support the 
view propounded by Burkitt. See Connolly, 7. 7. S., vol. VI., p, 522, 
¢ Aphraates and Monasticism’; and /. 7. S., vol. viul., p. 41, ‘St. Ephraim 
and Encratism ’. 


544 SYRIAN CHRISTIANS. [CH. Xx. 


The Syrians had a theology of their own; 
one strange feature being due to the fact that, their 
language having only two genders, the Holy Spirit is 
described as feminine, and thus it is possible for an 
allegorical preacher like Aphraates to speak as follows:— 
“We have heard from the Law that a man will leave 
his father and mother and will cleave to his wife..... 3 
What father and mother doth he forsake that taketh a 
wife? This is the meaning: that when a man hath not 
yet taken a wife, he loveth God as his Father, and the 
Holy Spirit his Mother, and he hath no other love. But 
when a man taketh a wife he forsaketh his Father 
and Mother, those namely that are signified above,” etc. 
This and similar expressions imply, not that the Syrians 
were heretical], for they subscribed to the doctrines of 
Nicaea, but that they moved in a totally different 
ecclesiastical atmosphere from the Greek theologians; 
whilst their passion for allegory made their doctrine 
less clear-cut and precise than that of the rest of 
Christendom. 

Four representatives of this interesting branch of 
the Church may be taken into consideration: St. James 
of Nisibis; Ephraim the Syrian; and the two successive 
bishops of Edessa, Rabbulas and Ibas. 

mi : A very celebrated Syrian is James, 

Nisibis, Dishop of Nisibis, the spiritual father of 

St. Ephraim, who is called by Theodoret 
‘the Great’. He connects the third and fourth centuries, 
and is said to have borne the marks of persecution when 
he attended the Council of Nicaea. He is also described 
as a kinsman of Gregory the Illuminator, the apostle of 
Armenia. But the fame of James rests mainly on the 
patriotic zeal displayed by him in defending his city 
during the three sieges, in 338, 346, and 350, when the 
inhabitants held out against the Persians. When Nisibis 
became Persian, the Christians, as was stipulated in the 
treaty, retired, bearing with them the bones of their 
brave and saintly bishop. 

St. Ephraim (Syr. A/rém) Syrus, the 
glory of the Syrian Church, was a disciple 
of James of Nisibis, whom he had accompanied when 
a mere boy to the Council of Nicaea. He resided in 


Ephraim, 


CH. xx.] St. EPHRAIM AND Sr. BASIL, 545 


Nisibis till the death of James, or, as some say, till its 
surrender to the Persians in a.pD. 363. One of the great 
events of his life was his visit to Basil, whose fame as 
bishop of Caesarea had reached Ephraim’s home at 
Edessa. The pomp of Basil as he sat on the episcopal 
throne shocked the Syrian ascetic; but when the bishop 
preached Ephraim was so delighted that he repeated the 
words as he heard them and joined in the applause which 
followed, despite his ignorance of Greek. It is remark- 
able testimony to the unwillingness or incapacity of most 
of the Fathers to learn any language but their own, that 
these two saints had to converse through an interpreter, 
though Ephraim is said to have been miraculously en- 
abled to understand Basil’s sermon and to utter words in 
Greek. By the same power Basil pronounced a Syriac 
sentence to his guest. Ephraim passed his life in 
poverty as a rigid ascetic, holding no higher office in the 
Church than that of adeacon. He was an indefatigable 
writer as a controversialist, homilist, scriptural exegete, 
and poet. He is said to have left behind him three 
million lines; and, though much of his work has been 
lost, his literary remains still fill six folio volumes. The 
general verdict upon his compositions seems to be that 
of Cardinal Bellarmine, ‘pious rather than learned’; 
and indeed this seems characteristic of the Christianity 
of Syria, which does not seem to have been illuminated 
by much intellectual brilliancy.’ 
When we reach the Nestorian contro- 
: Baber versy we find manifested in two successive 
nner hharerg bishops of Edessa the tendencies which 
led to the disruption of the Syrian Church 
into two religious parties, both of which broke off from 
the orthodoxy of the Greek-speaking Church. Rabbulas, 
who was made bishop of Edessa in a.p. 412, represents 
the Oriental under Hellenic influence. Born of heathen 
parentage, a man of wealth and position, he embraced 
Christianity in its most ascetic form, with all the fervour 
1. A convenient account of the life and writings of St. Ephraim, 
together with an English translation of a few of his homilies, etc., will be 
found in the Lzbrary of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. XII1., 
edited by Dr. Gwynn. Some of his works are also translated into 
English by J. B. Morris, and published in the Oxford Library of the 
Fathers. 
MM 


546 NESTORIANS IN SYRIA. _—_—s [cH xx. 


of hisnation. He manifested his hostility to Nestorius in 
a sermon preached, probably in Syriac, at Constantinople, 
but later on we find him, at the Council of Ephesus, 
among the supporters of the accused in opposition to 
Cyril. Soon, however, Rabbulas became reconciled 
to the bishop of Alexandria, together with John of 
Antioch and other Orientals who had defended Nestorius. 
For the rest of his life he devoted his energies to the 
suppression of Nestorianism, and to abuse of Theodore 
of Mopsuestia, the admired teacher of the School of 
Antioeh, whom he declared to be the real author of 
the heresy... He died about a.p. 435, having done all 
in his power to bring the Syrian Church into con- 
formity with the other churches of the Empire. But 
his work was in a measure undone by his successor, 
Ibas. 
The proximity of Antioch made the 
in Sa DRO influence of anti-Cyrillan doctrine power- 
AD. 435-457, ful among Syrian scholars, inasmuch as it 
was opposed to the teaching of the revered 
Theodore of Mopsuestia. Ibas, the most fervent admirer 
of this theologian, who had laboured to make his writings 
popular in Edessa and the East by translating them into 
Syriac, was elected bishop in place of Rabbulas, a.p. 435, 
and held the See for twenty-two years. The furious 


opposition he encountered during his life-time, his trials, 


condemnation, imprisonment, acquittals, his friendship 
with Theodoret, bishop of Cyrus, as well as the storm of 
controversy which raged over his name in the sixth 
century, are part of the history of the controversy 
concerning the Two Natures of our Lord. His letter to 
Maris, bishop of Hardaschir in Persia, was one of the 
famous Three Chapters condemned by the fifth General 
Council in the reign of Justinian. (A.D. 553.)? Ibas was 
the founder of the famous Nestorian School of Edessa, 


1. See especially his Letter to Cyril and Ibas’ Letter to Maris. Dict. 
Chr. Biog., arts. ‘Rabbulas’ and ‘Ibas’. 

2. This controversy was instigated by Theodore Askidas, bishop of 
Caesarea, who suggested to Justinian the condemnation of the anti-Cyrillan 
writings of Theodoret, the person and writings of Theodore, and the letter 
of Ibas to Maris. These ‘Three Chapters’ were condemned by the fifth 
General Council, A.D. 553. Harnack, Azstory of Dogma, vol. IV. Pp. 245, 
Eng. Tr. 


CH. Xx.] THE SYRIAN BIBLE. 547 


which was driven beyond the Roman territory, and 
became even more famous and influential in Persia. 
Tho Syriac The Syriac language must always be 
Werithiie. of interest to the student of the New 
Testament, owing to the numerous transla- 
tions made therein. The dialect, it must be remembered, 
is not that of Palestine, represented by the Aramaic 
portions of the Old Testament, the Targums, etc., but 
that in use in Mesopotamia and the adjoining districts. 
It would be out of place to discuss the relation of the 
different Syriac Versions of the New Testament to one 
another; but a bare enumeration of them will shew that 
the Church of the East exhibited a pre-eminent anxiety to 
obtain a good version of the Scriptures. The authorised 
_ version of the whole district was the Peshitta or ‘ Simple’ 
translation, which was received by orthodox, Nestorian, 
and Monophysite Christians with equal reverence. 
Whether it is the oldest version is open to question ; 
but it certainly preceded the schisms of the Oriental 
Church. Modern scholars seem to be agreed that a more 
venerable version of the Gospels than the Peshitta exists: 
two manuscripts having been discovered, one in 1858 by 
Cureton, and the other in 1892 by Mrs. Lewis and Mrs. 
Gibson. These are both styled the ‘Gospel of the 
Separate’ (Zvangelion da Mépharréshé), to distinguish the 
four Gospels from the Harmony of Tatian, once so 
popular among the Syrians, and styled the Gospel of the 
Mixed (Zvangelion da Méthall#é). Two later versions 
appeared, the Philoxenian, by Philoxenus, bishop of Mab- 
bog (A.D. 485—51g), and the Harklensian by Thomas of 
Harkel (Heraclea) in Mesopotamia. There is also a 
Palestinian Syriac, used by the Greek Church of Palestine 
and Egypt, in a dialect more akin to that of the Jewish 
Targums.? 

1. For an account of Syrian Christianity see Professor Burkitt’s Zarly 
Eastern Christianity; Tixeront, Les Origines de léelise ad’ Edesse; 
Assemani, 826/. Orzent. J. ; Mommsen’s Provinces of the Roman Empire } 
vol. 11., ch. ix.; Dzct. Chr. Biog., arts. ‘ Abgar’, ‘Thaddaeus’, ‘ Ibas’, 
and ‘ Rabbulas’; Phillips, Doctrine of Addaz; Eusebius, 2. &. 1. 13, 
Il. 1; Sozomen, H. Z. 111. 16; Theodoret, H. Z. 11. 30 ; Gibbon, ch. xviii, 
For the Syriac Versions and Tatian’s Déa/essaron see Encyclopedia Biblica, 
art. ‘ Texts and Versions’, col. 5000 (Burkitt) ; Hastings’ Drct. of Bzb/e, vol. 
IV., arts. ‘ Versions’ and ‘Text of New Test.’ (Nestlé), Extra Vol., art. 
Diatessaron’ (Stenning); also Burkitt, Hvangelion da Mépharréshé. 

MM 2 


548 ZOROASTRIANISM, (CH. xx, 


The only other power acknowledged 
by the Romans during the first six centuries 
of our era was that of the Parthians, which stretched from 
their eastern frontier to India. ‘The Parthians, a rudeand 
semi-barbarian people, long maintained their hegemony in 
western Asia, and disputed for the mastery of Mesopotamia 
and even of Syria with Rome. In the third century, 
however, the ancient race of the Persians once more 
asserted itself, and the dynasty of the Sassanidae claimed 
to continue the empire of Cyrus, Darius, and Xerxes. 
The appearance of this Neo-Persian empire was that of 
a formidable rival alike to the Roman and the Christian 
world. A rival world-power and also a world-religion 
arose to challenge the supremacy of both the Empire and 
the Church. The founder of the dynasty, who bore the 
name of Ardeshir or Artaxerxes I., was the restorer of the 
old faith as well as of the temporal power of Persia. 
Indeed he seems to have regarded himself as called upon 
by heaven to make the religion of Zoroaster supreme on 
earth. ‘ Never forget” he is reported to have said in his 
dying speech to his son “that as a king you are at once 
the protector of religion and of your country. Consider 
the altar and the throne as inseparable; they must 
always sustain each other. A sovereign without religion 
is a tyrant; and a people who have none may be deemed 
the most monstrous of all societies. Religion may exist 
without a state, but a state cannot exist without religion; 
and it is by holy laws that a political association can 
alone be bound.” Acting on these principles, the Persians 
made Zoroastrianism the test of patriotism, and to 
profess Christianity was considered practically to be in 
sympathy with Rome, the enemy of their nation. Allusion 
has already been made to the leading doctrines of the 
Persian religion; its dualism, combined with a belief 
in the ultimate triumph of good, its hatred of idolatry, 
and the zeal of its adherents in propagating their faith. 
The remarkable heresy which, under the name of 
Manichaeism, by attempting to fuse together Christian 
and Zoroastrian belief, caused so much trouble in East 
and West alike, has also been explained, and the fate of 
its founder under Varanes I. has been mentioned. It 
remains, however, to relate the re-establishment of the 


Persia. 


; 
3 
‘ 


CH.xx.] | THE NEW PERSIAN EMPIRE. 549 


ancient Persian religion under Artaxerxes I. The 40,000 
or 80,000 Magian priests (for accounts differ) were as- 
sembled, and were successively reduced by their own act 
to 4000, 400, 40, and finally to seven. Of these one was 
chosen, and after a seven days sleep, watched by king and 
nobles, he arose and declared the true faith of Ormuzd. 
The publication of the sacred volume followed, with its 
authorised commentary. The hierarchy was organized, 
and all subjects of the Persian empire were ordered to 
conform to the established religion. They did so with 
singular unanimity, and shortly after the decree the 
votaries of other faiths were said to number but 80,000. 

The vigour of the Neo-Persian empire is attested 
by the successes of Shahpoor (or Sapor) I., the successor of 
Artaxerxes, who reigned from a.p. 240—271, invaded the 
eastern provinces of Rome, captured Antioch, and took the 
emperor Valerian a prisoner. After several short reigns 
another Sapor succeeded to the throne, even before his 
birth, in A.D. 309, and reigned gloriously for some seventy 
years. Being a zealous adherent of the national religion, 
Sapor II. on attaining his majority issued severe edicts 
against the Christians, who were cruelly persecuted in 
his reign, despite the remonstrances of Constantine ;1 
and the Persian king even made the R-pman emperor’s 
sympathy with the Church a ground for hostilities. 
After the death of Constantine and the partition of his 
dominions between his sons, Sapor attacked the Romans. 
His wars with the Romans are marked by the successive 
sieges of Nisibis, which the Persians regarded as the key 
to Mesopotamia. 

Julian never injured Christianity so seriously as he 
did by his death. He left his army without a leader, 
and perhaps but for the inglorious terms accepted by 
Jovian only a few stragglers would ever have reached 


1. References to the sufferings of Christians under Sapor II. and 
to the wars between Persia and Rome will be found in the writings of 
Aphraates. Cf. Homily v., de Bellis, Homily xxt., de Persecutione. A 
large number of accounts of the martyrdoms of Christians which took place 
at that time have also survived ; most of them will be found in Bodjan’s 
edition of the Syriac Acta Martyrum, Paris, 1892. A critical edition of 
the Greek text of the Acts of the Persian Martyrs with an historical 
introduction has recently appeared, edited by the Bollandist Father, 
De la Haye. 


550 SYRIAN FATHERS. ~ | (CH. Xx. 


the frontier. As it was, the safety of the Roman expedi- 


tion was only purchased by a cession of provinces, and 


Nisibis, which had been for two centuries a Roman 
colony, had to be abandoned.’ Isdegerd I., who reigned 
during the first twenty years of the fifth century, to 
whom Arcadius is said to have committed the tutelage 
of the infant Theodosius II.—a charge which the Persian 
monarch accepted and honourably performed—was at 
first so favourably disposed towards the Christians that 
he listened to the teaching of Maruthas, bishop of 
Mesopotamia, and Abdaas, bishop of Ctesiphon. The 
indiscreet zeal of the latter in burning the great Fire- 
Temple of Ctesiphon and refusing to rebuild it made 
Isdegerd persecute the Christians, and his severity was 
continued by his successor Varanes V. 
The glory of the Persian Church is 
opPhraates’ Aphraates,the earliest of the Syriac-speaking 
Fathers whose works have survivedtous. We 
do not possess any account of his life, and all that can be 
said about him must be gathered from the internal evi- 
dence supplied by his writings, and from a few scattered 
references to him in ecclesiastical writers of a later date. 
He was probably of heathen parentage, and, owing to. the 
fact that he took the name of James, he was mistakenly 
identified with St. James of Nisibis. It is clear from his 
writings that he was both a bishop and a monk, and we 
possess a synodical epistle which he was commissioned 
to write, probably during a vacancy of the see of Selucia 
Ctesiphon. He may possibly have lived at the convent 
of Mar Mattai in the neighbourhood of Nineveh. His 
extant writings consist of twenty-three discourses or 
homilies (Memré). Of these the first ten were completed 
in the year 337, and the second collection, which consists 
of Homilies xI.—xx1I., was completed in the year 344. 
The twenty-two discourses must have been intended to 


1. The terms of the peace between Jovian and Sapor II. were: (1) 
the cession of the five provinces east of the Tigris, ceded to Rome by the 
Persian king Narses; (2) the cities of Singara, Nisibis, and the ‘ Camp of 
the Moors’ were surrendered; (3) Rome withdrew her protection from 
Armenia. On these harsh conditions the Roman army was to be allowed 
to withdraw from Persian territory, and a truce for thirty years was 
proclaimed between the two empires. Rawlinson, of. ¢z¢., pp. 235—236 ; 
Ammianus, bk. xxv., 7 ad jin, 


CH, xx.] WRITINGS OF APHRAATES, 551 


form a series, as they correspond in number and order to 
the letters of the Syriac alphabet. One more homily, 
bearing the title The Cluster, was written in the year 
345. These writings are full of interest both historically 
and doctrinally. Although written subsequently to the 
Council of Nicaea they contain no reference to the Arian 
controversy. This may probably be accounted for by the 
fact that owing to the wars between Persia and Rome 
there was very little opportunity for communication be- 
tween the two countries at that date. Inspite of a certain 
lack of clearness in doctrinal statements it is possible to 
reconstruct the creed of the Persian Church from the 
writings of Aphraates, and to gather much information 
as to the beliefs and practices of the Christian church 
which was furthest removed from the influences of Greek 
and Latin Christianity in the fourth century. Aphraates 
is an authority of first-rate importance for the earliest 
extant text of the Syriac versions of Scripture. Apart 
from certain Acta Martyrum his writings are also our 
chief source of information for the history of the perse- 
cutions under Sapor II. 
fe It is beyond the limits of our period to 
Nestorians in relate at length how the Persian kings ex- 
tended their protection to those Christians 
who refused to accept later definitions of the Faith. 
The decrees of the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon 
called into being large bodies of Christians who no 
longer looked to the Roman emperors as their natural 
protectors. The Nestorians were heartily welcomed in 
Persia, and their leader Barsumas obtained the bishopric 
of Nisibis in 435, which he held till 489. His see became 
the centre of a Nestorian propaganda, which overspread 


1. The Syriac text of the writings of Aphraates was discovered and 
first edited by William Wright, 7he Homilies of Aphraates, London, 1869. 
It has since been re-edited, with a Latin translation and introduction, by 
Dom Parissot, Patrologia Syriaca, tom. 1., Paris, 1894—1907. An English 
translation of some of the Homilies, together with a very convenient 
introduction by Dr. Gwynn, will be found in the Lzbrary of Nicene and 
Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. X11. See also Burkitt, of. cét., pp. 84 ff. ; and, 
on the Creed of Aphraates, Dom Connolly, ‘The Early Syriac Creed’, 
Zeitschrift fiir die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und ¢ie Kunde des 
Unchristentums, 1906, pp. 202 ff.; also H. L. Pass, ‘The Creed of 
Aphraates’, ¥. Z. S., vol. X., p. 267. 


552 TIRIDATES RECOVERS ARMENIA,  [CH. Xx. 


the East and created the most wide-spread church in ; 
Christendom, extending even to China. The Armenians 
also may have owed the toleration for which they 
struggled so bravely to the fact that they refused to obey 
the decrees of the Council of Chalcedon. Thus Persia 
became the centre of a Christianity which held no 
communion with that of the Romans.} 

Armenia is specially interesting to the 
student of ecclesiastical history, not only 
as the first Christian nation, but as one which made 
its faith the supreme test of patriotism. Confronted by 
a religion which made as insistent a claim to the obedience 
of mankind, the Christianity of Armenia rallied the 
nation to resist itsdemands. From the first, Christianity 
was a national affair in Armenia, as the story of its 
adoption—for there had been preachers of the gospel at 
an earlier date—testifies. During the days of the Parthian 
empire Armenia had been the appanage of the royal 
house of the Arsacidae, and its throne a sort of pro- 
vision for a younger son. When the Sassanian house 
under Artaxerxes (Ardeshir) assumed the hegemony, and 
the empire became Persian, Anak, an Armenian noble 
of royal birth, was instigated by the new ‘king of kings’ 
to murder his master Chosroés. Armenia was now 
occupied by the Persians, but a boy, a scion of the 
royal family, named Tiridates, was saved by the satrap 
Artavasdes and committed to the care of the Roman 
emperor. In a.p. 286 Diocletian, being at war with 
Persia, allowed Tiridates to goto Armenia. ‘The people, 
grievously oppressed by their conquerors, rose in favour 
of a member of the old Arsacid house, and Tiridates 
became master of the land. 

At the time of the murder of Chosroés, 
thea eoryor, 2 Child of the assassin Anak had been 
cir.A.D.302—331. brought into Cappadocia, brought up in 

the Christian faith and baptized with the 
name of Gregory; but he is better known to posterity 
as Gregor Lusavoric ‘the sun of Armenia’, or Gregory 


Armenia. 


1. Rawlinson, Seventh Ortental Monarchy; Malcolm, History of 
fersia. For Sapor’s persecution see Sozomen, 11. 9, 10; for Isdegerd’s, 
Theodoret, H. #. v. 39. For the history of the Church in Persia see 
especially Leboust, Le Christianisme dans ? Empire Perse, Paris, 1904: — 


CH. Xx.]} CONVERSION OF THE COUNTRY. 553 


the Illuminator. He had married a Christian lady named 
Mary, by whom he had two sons. Attaching himself to 
Tiridates, Gregory was advanced to high honour in 
Armenia; but, owing to his refusal to partake in an 
idol sacrifice, Tiridates, like his patron Diocletian an 
enemy to Christianity, subjected him to twelve tortures, 
and afterwards, having learned that he was the son of 
his father’s murderer, cast him into a loathsome dun- 
geon, where he remained for fifteen years. At the end 
of this time Tiridates, having put to death a community 
of Christian virgins under St. Gaiane, because one of 
them, the beautiful Rhipsime, would not submit to 
his desires, was punished, says the legend, by being 
~ turned into a wild boar, and his people were plagued. It 
was revealed to his sister that the sole condition of 
pardon was the release of Gregory. For sixty-five days 
the saint prepared the people for baptism, and then 
narrated to them his ‘great vision’. One from heaven 
appeared, Whose presence was Light, and with Him three 
pedestals each surmounted bya shining cross. At the com- 
mand of Gregory the people built three churches; one 
where Rhipsime was murdered and two where Gaiane and 
her companions fell. Gregory named the place Etch- 
miadzin (the descent of the Only- Begotten), and it is now 
known as Utch-Kilise (Turkish for ‘three churches’), In 
A.D. 302 the patriarch Leontius of Caesarea consecrated 
Gregory as bishop of Armenia. He lived till a.p. 331, 
dying in solitude in the wilderness, after having conse- 
crated his son Arisdages to be bishop in his stead. 
Such is the legend of the origin of the 
wnreh ate ational church of Armenia, which played 
Rone tinal - an honourable part in the history of the 
fifth century. The primate at an early 
date took the title of Catholicus (which has been: 
explained to mean ‘procurator’ or ‘vicar-general’) of the 


1. Dict. Chr. Biog., art, ‘Gregory (7)’.. The original life of 
St. Gregory the Illuminator was by Agathangelos, secretary to king 
Tiridates. See Langlois, Wistoriens de f Arménie, vol. 1. ; S. C. Malan, 
Life and Times of St. Gregory; Hastings’ Encycl. of Religion and Ethics, 
art. ‘Armenia (Christian)’, For the romance of the conversion of 
Tiridates see Duchesne in the Lzber Pontzficalis, where he compares it with 
the Roman legend of the conversion of Constantine. 


554 ARMENIA AND PERSIA, (CH. XxX, 


metropolitan of Caesarea, to whom Armenia was 
ecclesiastically subjected to such a degree that even 
permission to hold ordinations was not always granted to 
the primate. The Illuminator is said to have divided the 
country into ten dioceses ; and the presiding bishop was 
as a rulea member of his family. The policy of Armenia, 
which owing to its geographical situation was alternately 
under Roman and Persian influence, was greatly dependent 
on the Church. Thus in the days of Julian the known 
anti-Christian bias of that emperor made the Armenians 
unwilling to aid him in his fatal expedition against 
Persia (A.D. 362); though the peace concluded by Jovian 
in A.D. 363, by which the Romans pledged themselves 
not to support Armenia, was highly distasteful, because 
it left the country at the mercy of Sapor II. and the 
Zoroastrians. In a.p. 384, by a treaty between Rome 
and Persia, Armenia was partitioned into what we should 
term ‘spheres of influence’, an arrangement which lasted 
tilla.p. 420. Two years later Armenia became a Persian — 
satrapy under Varanes V., whose successor Isdegerd II. 
(a.D. 440—457) resolved to force the people to renounce 
Christianity for the Zoroastrian religion. Summoning 
the principal chiefs of Armenia, the Persian monarch 
commanded them to abandon Christianity for the Persian 
Fire-worship, and on their compliance sent them back 
to their own country. But during their absence the 
patriarch Joseph had held an assembly which declared 
that the Armenians as a Christian people were resolved 
never to abandon the Faith. The whole nation then 
rose in arms against the Persians, under Vartan, one of 
the nobles who had abjured the Faith at the command 
of Isdegerd but afterwards repented. A. great battle was 
fought in A.D. 455 or 456, in which the Christian Ar- 
menians were defeated, Vartan slain, and Zoroastrianism 
was enforced upon the nation, the patriarch Joseph 
and other bishops being taken to Persia, where they 
suffered martyrdom. ‘The leader of this rebellion, St. 
Vartan, is now above all others the national saint of 
Armenia. Within thirty years Armenia again rose in 
revolt in sympathy with the Iberians, who had thrown 
off the Persian yoke. Headed by Vahan of the 
Mamigonian family, to which Vartan also belonged, 


CH. XX.]} THE ARMENIAN LANGUAGE, 555 


the allies carried on the war with varying success from 
481 to 486, when Vahan was appointed governor by the 
Persians. Armenia instantly accepted Christianity as 
the national religion ; the fire altars were destroyed, and 
the apostates themselves abjured Zoroastrianism. 

The centre of Armenian Christianity 
was Vaharshabad near Mount Ararat, 
with its convent of Etchmiadzin, and it was here 
doubtless that the native version of the Scriptures was 
commenced at the close of the fourth century, at the 
instigation of the famous Mesrobes. Previously the 
language of Christianity in Armenia had been Syriac, 
but Mesrobes inaugurated a patriotic movement for the 
employment of the national alphabet, which he either 
invented or recovered. A number of the disciples of 
Mesrobes attended the schools of Edessa, Antioch, 
Constantinople, and Alexandria; and to this great 
literary movement we owe the preservation of some 
of the most precious monuments of antiquity, notably 
Tatian’s Diatessaron, which was published from the 
Armenian version of the commentary of Ephraim Syrus, 
in 1876. Mesrobes also invented the Georgian or 


Iberian alphabet. 
whe Thevians The little kingdom of Iberia, which 
‘lay to the north of Armenia, became 
Christian at the close of the third century. The 
story as told by Rufinus is that St. Nina, a pious 
woman, was taken captive to Iberia and healed the 
king’s son by prayer. The king himself was converted, 
by the darkness, which overtook him whilst hunting, 
being dissipated when he cried to the Christians’ God. 
Nina taught the doctrine of Christ to the king and queen, 
who preached respectively to the men and the women. 
A church was built, one of the columns of which stood 
upright at the prayer of the devout Nina. The country 
is said to have been visited by Eustathius, bishop of 
Antioch (a.D. 324— 331), who consecrated John to preside 


Mesrobes. 


1. Rawlinson, Seventh Ortental Monarchy; Hastings’ Excycl. of 
Religion and Ethics, art. ‘Armenia’; Hastings’ Dzct. of Bible, art. 
‘ Armenian Versions’ (F. C. Conybeare); Milman, Mist. of Christianity, 
vol. 11.; Déct. Chr. Biog., arts. ‘Armenians’, ‘Esnik’, ‘ Mesrobes’, 
‘Isaac (Sahag)’. 


556 FRUMENTIUS AND EDESIUS, __[cH. xx. 


over the infant church. In the sixth century the Iberians 
were attacked and defeated by the Persian monarch 
Kobad, because their king Gurgenes refused to abandon 
Christianity for Zoroastrianism. The Persians were 
finally expelled from the country by the Saracens in the 
seventh century, but, despite the oppression of the Mahom- 
medans, the Iberians remained true to the Faith. St. 
Nina seems to have been related to St. George the Martyr, 
whose insignia the kings of Iberia adopted at the close 
of the sixth century, and from whom the country receives 
its name of Georgia.! 

In the days of St. Athanasius the 
Church of Alexandria became the mother 
of the one native African church whose existence has 
continued down to the present day. The foundation of 
the Abyssinian or Ethiopian Church was owing to the 
wreck of a mercantile or scientific expedition headed by 
Meropius, a philosopher. Ethiopia, among the ancients, 
is almost as vague a term as Arabia or India, and it isa 
disputed point whether Christianity was not introduced 
in Apostolic times, as we read in the Acts of the Apostles 
of the baptism of the eunuch of Candace, “queen of 
the Ethiopians”. Various Apostles are credited with 
having first evangelized the country, but the foundation 
of the Ethiopian Church must be placed as late as the 
fourth century, when all the expedition of Meropius was 
massacred by the natives except two youths, named 
Frumentius and Edesius, who were spared and obtained 
prominent positions at the court of the king, near Axum, 
a city near the eastern coast of the Red Sea, on about 
the fourteenth parallel of latitude, a little north of Aden. 
When the lads grew up they became the chosen coun- 
sellors of the king, and at his death were entrusted by the 
widow with the custody of her sons. They began their 
missionary work as laymen, assembling the Christian 
traders and others for services whenever possible. At 
last they obtained leave to return home, and Edesius 
became a presbyter of the church of Tyre, where Rufinus, 


Ethiopia. 


1. The story of Nina is told by Rufinus (H. Z. 1. ro), and is re- 
peated by Socrates (1. 20), Sozomen (11. 7), Theodoret (1. 24). The same 
tale is told by Moses of Chorene, who quotes it from Agathangelos. 


aa 
a el + él 


CH. XX.] ABYSSINIAN CHRISTIANITY. 557 


who relates the story, met him and heard the account 
from his own lips. Frumentius in the meanwhile went to 
Athanasius at Alexandria, and told him all that had been 
done in Ethiopia, and how a Christian church had been 
called into being by lay agencies. The great bishop and 
his synod, on hearing the circumstances, agreed that 
none was so well fitted to preside over the new church 
as Frumentius, who was accordingly consecrated and 
sent to Ethiopia as bishop of Axum. This was the 
origin of one of the strangest of all branches of the 
Christian Church, which to this day is in existence, and 
looks to Cairo for its patriarch, always a Coptic monk 
consecrated by the successor of St. Athanasius. The 
Church of Abyssinia has existed despite the barbarism 
of the people and the pressure of the Moslem power, and 
though degraded, the Christianity of the country has 
still preserved a higher civilization than has been found 
elsewhere on the African continent. The patriarch is 
still called the Abba Salama (the father of peace), the 
same title as was given to Frumentius, the apostle of 
the country. 

Abyssinian Christianity still retains some of the 
most interesting traces of the practices of the primitive 
Church, together with customs apparently Judaic in 
origin. Circumcision is practised, though its religious 
significance has been denied; the Jewish Sabbath is 
observed, as is also the law of the Levirate, and the 
flesh of swine and of things strangled is forbidden. 
The Virgin Mary is held in high regard, there being 
no less than thirty-two annual feasts in her honour. 
The crucifix is not permitted, and indeed all images 
are abominated, though the naked cross is allowed to 
be used. The marriage of the clergy was not forbidden, 
but even among the laity second marriages are discoun- 
tenanced. In fact, as has been truly said, “ The isolation 
of the Ethiopian Church has tended to many ancient 
rites and ceremonies; and has unquestionably conserved 
the strong Jewish element, which is more conspicuous 
in the remains of the Ethiopian Church than in any 
other Christian community.” One strange ceremony 
at Epiphany illustrates the simplicity if not the bar- 
barism of these Christians. The entire population 


558 ABYSSINIAN SCRIPTURES, (CH. Xx. 


of the district—men, women, and children—meet and 
plunge naked into the water by torch-light. For this 
they have been accused of a repetition of the Sacrament 
of Baptism; but perhaps this strange act is no more 
than a commemoration of our Saviour’s baptism at this 
season.’ 
va The ancient Ethiopic language, be- 
ey os longing to the Semitic family, is still em- 
the Scriptures. ployed by the Abyssinian Church, which 
has had a version of the Old and New 
Testament as early as the fifth if not the fourth 
century. The Old Testament canon is very extensive, 
but varies in the different catalogues. No less than 
forty-six books are enumerated, including all those in 
the Septuagint except the Maccabees; and the Book 
of Enoch, IV Esdras, Jubilees, and the Rest of the Words 
of Baruch, are added. The New Testament consists 
of thirty-five books, which are made up of the usual 
twenty-seven together with the Canon Law or Sinédos 


in eight books. To this Ethiopian canon we owe the 


recovery of the Book of Enoch, which was in high credit 
in the Church till the close of the third century, and 
then gradually fell into disuse and remained long 
unknown, till Bruce, the celebrated traveller, brought 
home two MSS. in 1773. Greek and Latin versions have 
since been discovered, but the Ethiopic is the only one 
which gives the entire text, and that in its most trust- 
worthy condition.? 
’ The barbarians who ultimately occupied 
aPeogbnt st the Roman provinces in Western Europe 
were silently converted to Christianity, 
but the form which they accepted was not that permitted 
by the law of the Empire. The hordes who followed 
Alaric into Italy, and the invaders of Africa under 
Gaiseric, came as Christians but as Arians, and hardly 


1. The story of Frumentius and Edesius is told by Rufinus (4. Z. 
1. 9), and repeated by Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret. Dict. Chr. 
Biog., art. ‘Ethiopian Church’. Lippmann has an interesting article on 
Christian Abyssinia in Hastings’ Axcycl. of Religion and Ethics, vol. 1., 
P. 57, in which he completely ignores the mission of Frumentius and 

desius, 

2. It was first translated into English by Archbishop Laurence in 

1821, and has since been edited by Dr. Charles. 


CH. XX.] ARIANISM AND MISSIONS, 559 


any Teutonic race received the Faith in its Catholic 
form. It appeared at one time as though the Teutonic 
invaders and the inhabitants of the Roman provinces 
were destined to be separated by religion as well as 
by race, and that whilst the more civilised but sub- 
ject people held to the faith of Nicaea, their proud 
but barbarian conquerors kept aloof from the more 
refined Christianity of the despised and unmanly 
Romans, and made the balder creed of Arius their 
national religion. 

The heretic Arius was banished by Constantine to 
Illyricum, and whilst there he seems to have impressed 
his views upon the Christians of the neighbourhood. 
At any rate, Ursacius and Valens, the two Western 
bishops who championed the cause of Arianism under 
Constantius, belonged to the district; and it is quite 
possible that there were missions to the Goths, who, 
it has been suggested, found Christianity presented 
in its Arian form, with a God and His Son like Odin 
and Balder, easier to accept than the more metaphysical 
teaching of the Nicene Creed. But the prevalence of 
Arianism among all the Teutonic people has not hither- 
to been satisfactorily accounted for. 


The greatest of all ancient mission- 

ASye aon aries was one of the Arian preachers 
of the gospel to the barbarians, namely 

Ulfilas, who has been rightly styled ‘the Apostle 
of the Goths’. The facts of his life are briefly these. 
He was either of noble Gothic parentage or the de- 
scendant of Christian Cappadocians who had _ been 
led into captivity. At any rate, he was a Christian 
by birth, and a disciple of the Gothic bishop Theophilus 
who was present at the Council of Nicaea. He was 
made bishop of the Goths by Eusebius of Nicomedia, 
at the Council of the Dedication at Antioch, a.D. 341. 
He began his labours in the abandoned Roman province 
of Dacia, where the Ostrogoths were settled; but when 
a persecution began he led his Christian converts into 
Moesia. There, at the foot of mount Haemus, he 
established a Christian colony of Gothit minores, as 
his people were called. They are described as leading 
a pastoral life, and as less warlike than the rest of 


560 TEUTONIC ARIANISM, | (cH. xx, 


their countrymen. In order to make the Scriptures 
accessible to his converts, Ulfilas invented a Gothic 
alphabet and translated the Bible, thereby preserving 
an invaluable record of an early Teutonic language. 
Knowing the warlike habits of the Goths, he refrained 
irom giving them a version of Samuel and Kings, as 
the records of battle and murder would only reawaken 
their heathen passion for bloodshed.1 We have a creed 
of Ulfilas, preserved by his pupil Auxentius, in which 
he professes the Arianism of the time of Constantius, 
and expressly denies the Divinity of the Holy Spirit, 
a denial which in later days became a peculiar feature 
of Gothic Arianism, as is shewn by the opening words 
of their Gloria Patri per Filium instead of Patri et Filio. 
The history of the abandonment of Arianism is beyond 
our period, and it is sufficient to remark that whereas 
toward the close of the fifth century there were hardly 
any Catholics among the barbarians, not a single 
kingdom remained Arian by the end of the seventh. 
Imperfect as was the Christianity of the Goths, its 
salutary effects were seen when Rome fell into the hands 
of the forces of Alaric; and the testimony of Augustine 
shews how greatly mitigated that appalling disaster was 
by the fact that Rome fell before Christians rather than 
heathen barbarians. 
5 Very different was it with the Vandal 
The Vandalsin conquerors of Africa, whose Arianism 
made them more instead of less hostile 
to the conquered Christians. The story of the Vandal 
occupation of Africa between 430—530 is one of 
Severe repression if not persecution of the Catholic 
religion. The Vandals regarded the Catholics with 
haughty disdain as a conquered race, inferior to them- 
selves in morality and virtue as well as in religion. If 
the persecution of the Catholics has been exaggerated by 
their writers, the ignominy of their position in Africa 
under Vandal domination was undoubtedly very bitter 
to them. Elsewhere the Arian Teutons set the Catholics 


1. So the Arian historian, Philostorgius. No MS. of the Old 
Testament survives, except a fragment in the Ambrosian library of 
Milan. The chief codex is the Argentius, written in gold and silver 
letters on purple vellum, and now at Upsala. 


CH, XX. ]} IRELAND, 56x 


an example of toleration and forbearance, the more 
laudable that it was not reciprocated by the adherents of 
Nicaea. When it is remembered that the majority in 
the Roman army were Gothic Arians, and that Ambrose 
sternly refused to permit their worship at Milan, and 
Chrysostom in Constantinople, we can only admire the 
toleration of the Gothic kings to the Romans within 
their dominions.! Catholic missions to the Goths were 
encouraged by Chrysostom, who is said to have preached 
to them himself through an interpreter. 
Although Agricola, the father-in-law of 
Ireland and the historian Tacitus, had whilst governor 
. Patrick. ae ; 
A.D. 389—461. Of Britain recommended the annexation 
of Ireland by the Romans, his advice was 
never followed, and the island remained independent. 
The task of reducing it would, according to the 
estimate of Agricola, have been the work of a single 
legion, whilst the removal of all danger of the spectacle 
of a free people in the neighbouring island inciting 
the Britons to endeavour to obtain their liberty was, 
in his opinion, an important advantage. The harbours 
and coast-line of Ireland were however well known 
to the merchants and sailors of the first century, and 
intercourse with the Empire was frequent and con- 
tinuous.?, The mutual hostility of the inhabitants of the 
islands was with justice considered a sufficient obstacle 
to any combination of British and Irish against the 
dominion of Rome. By the beginning of the fifth 
century it seems certain that there were already 
Christian communities in Ireland, and the settlement 
of Irish tribes in South Wales and perhaps Devon and 
Cornwall had created a means of intercourse between it 
and Great Britain. ap ss 
: Early in the fifth century Patricius, 
BPE wor Sipe the son of Galpin a man 
of the rank of decurion and’a deacon in the Church, 


x. See the concluding section of my article in Hastings’ Excyclopedia 
of Religion and Ethics, on ‘ Arianism’; C. A. Scott, Ulfilas; The 
Extinction of the Churches in North Africa, by L. R. Holme. The Creed 
of Ulfilas is in Hahn’s Symdéole. 

2. Tacitus, Agricola, cap. xxiv. Ireland, says Tacitus, is ‘‘inter 
Britanniam atque Hispaniam sita” | 
NN 


562 PATRICK AT LERINUM. — [CH. xx. 


was taken captive to Ireland. His was a clerical 
family, for the father of Calpurnius, Potitus by name, 
had been a Christian presbyter. Their home was 
Bannaventa—a place which has been variously assigned 
to the neighbourhood of Daventry in Northampton- 
shire, to the regions of the lower Severn, and to 
Glamorganshire. When he was about seventeen a band 
of Irish freebooters descended upon Bannaventa, and 
Patrick was carried into slavery. The scene of his 
captivity is uncertain; according to Patrick’s own 
account it was the wood of Fochlad in the north-west 
of Connaught, but legend also connects the scene of 
Patrick’s servitude with the district of Dalaradia in the 
county of Antrim on the east coast. His six years of 
bondage were the years of his conversion. Hehad never 
previously given much thought to the subject of religion, 
but on the hill-side as he fed his master’s swine he would 
utter as many as a hundred prayers a day; for, as he 
says, “the Lord had opened the sense of my unbelief.” 
Taking refuge in a ship near Wicklow, Patrick made his 
escape and landed somewhere in Gaul. Finally he 
reached the island monastery of Lerinum (Lérins) in the 
south of France. ‘There, in the cloister founded by 
Honoratus and adorned by men like Vincentius, the 
author of the Commonitorium, St. Hilary, the famous 


bishop of Arles, and the learned Faustus, a countryman 


of Patrick, the future apostle of Ireland remained for 
some years. He then returned to his own home and 
kindred in Britain. But he could not rest; the thought 
of the heathen in Ireland troubled him, and he saw ina 
vision a friend named Victoricus coming with letters 
in his hand. ‘And he gave me one of these, and I read 
the beginning of the letter which contained the voice of 
the Irish. And as I read the beginning of it, I fancied I 
heard the voice of the folk who were near the wood of 
Fochlad, nigh to the western sea. And this was their 
cry: We pray thee, holy youth, to come again and walk 
amongst us as before. I was pierced to the heart and 
could read no more, and thereupon I awoke.” But the 
later story says that the cry which pierced Patrick’s 
heart was the “cry of the children in the wood of Fochlad, 


SF 


even the children yet unborn”. 


CH. xx.] PATRICK SUCCEEDS PALLADIUS. 563 


But Patrick did not consider it his duty instantly to 
start for Ireland as a missionary ; he went and studied 
for fourteen years at Auxerre, first under bishop Amator 
and then under his more famous successor St. Germanus, 
the overthrower of Pelagianism in Britain. The spread 
of that heresy in Britain had aroused Pope Celestine to 
consider the position of the Christians in Ireland, and 
he deterrnined to send them a bishop. But his choice 
fell not on Patrick, but on the deacon Palladius, who 
had interested himself in the suppression of the British 
heresy. He was consecrated by the Pope in a.p. 431, 
but only remained a year in Ireland, dying in the land 
of the Picts. Patrick had already resolved to follow 
Palladius ; and on his death he received consecration by 
Germanus as his successor. 

He landed in Ireland in a.p. 433, probably near 
Wicklow, and made his way in a boat along the coast 
to Strangford Lough in Ulster. Entering this land- 
locked bay, he and his companions turned southward to 
the river Quoile, and fell in with a certain Dichu, a 
man of substance, who became the first convert. It is 
said that Patrick next journeyed northward to convert 
his old master, who, fearing the power of the Faith to 
draw him from his old beliefs, burned himself alive on 
Mount Miss (Slemish). Patrick then returned to Dichu, 
and turned a barn or stall, which his convert had given 
him, into achurch. The name of the place has survived 
in the form Saul (Sabhall—Lat. stabulum). Proceeding 
southward into Meath, Patrick or his colleagues 
approached Loigaire, the high king of all Ireland, at 
Tara. 

The king’s son [edilimid was converted by 
Lomman, and entrusted the care of his son Fortchernn 
to the missionary, bestowing upon him the place where 
the boy first met the Christians, ‘the Ford of the Alder’ 
on the Boyne, which still bears the name of Trim (the 
Alder). 

Mindful of the cry of the children in the wood of 
Fochlad, Patrick visited Connaught and preached with 
success—the village of Baslic commemorating the fact 
that he had built a church (basilica) between the rivers 
Shannon and Suck. About 442 Patrick went to Rome 

NN 2 


564 THE IRISH CHURCH. ——‘[cH. xx. 


to Leo the Great, presumably to consult him about the 
foundation of the primatial See of Ireland. The spot 
chosen was Armagh in the kingdom of Oriel, whose 
monarch Daire had embraced the Faith; and the See 
was established in a.p. 444. Patrick’s useful and 
arduous labours ended with his death in a.p. 461. 
The establishment of the Irish Church is specially 
interesting as being the first Western territory added to 
the domain of the Faith which had never formed part of 
the Empire. The consecration of Palladius by Celestine 
was a sign that the Roman pontiffs were prepared to 
extend their jurisdiction beyond the frontiers of the 
civilised world and to add to their dominions “ realms 
which Caesar never knew’’. Ireland was further organized 
ecclesiastically, not on imperial but on its native tribal 
lines. It is not likely that Patrick so much as dreamed 
of dispensing with bishops exercising diocesan authority, 
but the main feature of the new church was its 
monasteries, in which tribal and hereditary government 
prevailed as it did in the Celtic clans.} 
A Rays Beyond the wall of Hadrian the work 
‘The Picts. Of evangelization was going on in the 
fifth century. Ninian, the son of a 
vegulus or sub-king in Cumbria, had been brought up as 


a Christian, visited Rome under Damasus, and was a 


devoted admirer of St. Martin of Tours. He was ordained 
by Pope Siricius as a bishop to preach to the Picts, 
and founded his monastery of Candida Casa, the 
White House, on the Solway, just after St. Martin’s 
death in 397. It became a famous School, and was 
attended by both Irish and British Christians. Ninian 
is one of the early monastic missionaries who made his 
community the starting point of his labours.’ 

The growth of the Church beyond the 
imperial frontiers was perhaps more rapid 
in the sixth than in the fifth century, 
when we find large Christian communities in southern 
Arabia, traces of missionary work far inland in 
northern Africa, churches established among the 


Rapid missionary 
extension. 


1. Ihave taken my facts from Prof. Bury’s Life of St. Patrick. 
2. Bede, Ast. Heed. 111. 4. 


q 


= a) 


CH. XX] MISSIONARY ACTIVITY. 565 


Nubians and Blemmyes by the energy of the Egyptian 
Christians. In addition to this were the vast operations 
of the Nestorians, those undaunted missionaries who 
journeyed across Asia preaching the word and establish- 
ing churches even in China. It appears that scant 
justice has been done to the expansive powers of the 
Christianity of the fifth and sixth centuries, and to the 
enormous efforts then made to evangelize the world. 
Nor must the influence of the monks and _ hermits 
be overlooked, whose austerities and blameless lives 
exercised so potent an influence on the barbarian 
tribes of the desert. We are apt to forget, whilst 
studying the often barren and profitless controversies of 
the age, the astonishing vitality of the Church in every 
part of the world. If missionary zeal is a proof of life, 
the Christian Church was never more alive than at the 
close of our period. 

By a.p. 461 there were strong and vigorous churches 
in Armenia, Iberia, Mesopotamia, Persia, and Ethiopia. 
The gospel was being preached in the Sahara among 
the northern Arabs. Ireland, which had never been 
incorporated in the Empire, was a province of the 
Roman Church; and Christianity had overstepped the 
wall of Hadrian, which the Romans had had such 
difficulty in defending. Britain was over-run by heathen 
invaders who were powerless to eradicate what must 
have appeared to be but a feeble branch of the Christian 
Church. By means unknown to us, by missionaries 
whose names will never be revealed, every invader of 
Gaul and Italy, Spain and Africa, had heard of Christ. 
Rome had fallen into the hands of barbarians, but those 
barbarians were Christian. Already the Syriac, Ethio- 
pian, Armenian, Gothic, and Coptic languages had 
been pressed into the service of Christ; and the Gospels 
were translated into tongues whose very alphabet it had 
been necessary for missionaries to compose. At Nicaea, 
at Ephesus, at Chalcedon, the delegates of churches over 
which the Emperor had no authority appeared, to shew 
that Christ claimed not the Roman but the human 
race. 

It is a remarkable fact that few of these churches 
owed their inception to orthodoxy, and only one has 


566 IRELAND FAITHFU 


The Syrian ¢ Church became Mocaphyete in i a 
provinces and Nestorian beyond the frontiers. The 
Armenians, by a mistaken interpretation of the decrees, 
have never recognised the Council of Chalcedon. The 
Abyssinians look to the Monophysite patriarch of Egypt. 
The Teutons received their Christianity from Arian 
missionaries. One nation alone took its faith from an a 
orthodox source; and the Celtic Irish have remained 
true to the See which sent forth first Palladius and eis 2 

Patrick to the extreme limit of the Western wae known — 
to the ancients. 


CHAPTER XXI. 


CHURCH LIFE IN THE FOURTH AND FIFTH 
CENTURIES. 


pimeeaes With the publication of the Edict 
between Chris. Of Milan the Church passed into a new 
tianity beforeand era. The extent of the change can be 
after ean of measured by the simple fact that, where- 
as hitherto every man, woman and child 
who accepted baptism did so at the peril of his life; 
henceforward the profession of Christianity was a 
material aid to worldly advancement. The Faith was 
shortly destined to enjoy all the advantages of wealth, 
respectability, and prestige. Nothing in history is more 
remarkable than the story narrated in an earlier chapter, 
in which the ancient cults declined, decayed, and dis- 
appeared.” The amazing rapidity with which Chris- 
tianity spread, from the fourth century to the rise of 
Mahommed, is one of the phenomena of history. At the 
time of assembly of the Council of Nicaea in a.p. 325 the 
Roman empire may be said to have been covered with 
great or small Christian settlements, a few of which 
had appeared beyond its frontiers. In little more than 
two centuries Christianity was the religion not only 
of the ancient Roman empire in its fullest sense, but 
of vast tracts in both East and West which had been 
practically unknown in the ancient world. 
Such progress would have been humanly 
ee. speaking impossible without most careful 
organization and, one may add, centraliza- 
tion. The Church, even before persecution had ceased, 
had become a polity of remarkable strength. The 
Roman genius for administration and government had 


1. Supra, Chapter XVII. 


568 GREAT PATRIARCHATES. [cH xxL. 


never displayed its forces with more effect than when 
it welded all the scattered Christian communities into © 
the one body of the Catholic Church. Consciously or 
unconsciously the tendency was to centralize authority ; 
and though in theory all bishops were equal, the ad- 
ministrative power was gradually concentrated in the 
hands of the occupants of the Sees of the great capitals. 
Although these chiefs of the episcopate asserted that 
they owed their authority rather to the apostolic 
founders of their sees than to the temporal glory of the 
cities in which they were established; yet it is doubtful 
whether they could have retained their position had the 
cities themselves failed to maintain their pre-eminence. 
Indeed the Church followed the Empire almost servilely 
in her arrangement of patriarchates, provinces, and 
dioceses, and even the most venerable of all the churches, 
Jerusalem the Mother of Christendom, could only main- 
tain an independent position by legislation passed with 
her special interests in view at Nicaea.} 

The great partriarchates were Rome, 
Alexandria, and Antioch—later Constan- 
tinople. Modern controversy on the claims made by 
the popes must not let us in any way minimise the 
dignity and importance of the Roman bishop. The 
fact that no single bishop of the primatial See can 
be compared in elevation of character, distinction, or 
theological ability, with such men as Cyprian and 
Ambrose in the West or Athanasius, the Gregorys, 
Basil, and others in the East, enhances rather than 
diminishes our estimate of the importance of the Roman 
chair; for it only shews how immense was the prestige 


Rome. 


attaching the position which alone needed no man’s _ 


commanding talents to commend it in the eyes of 
Christendom. Almost by instinct the Roman bishops 
avoided the perilous duty of presiding at councils or 
taking sides in the great controversies, with the result 
that they came to be regarded as holding the balance 
between the disputants, and as exempt from the danger 
of falling into heresy. Their political power came 
comparatively late, as did their influence over the ~ 
populace of Rome. 


1. Supra, p. 319 


CH, XXI.]} DIGNITY OF CONSTANTINOPLE, 569 


Next to Rome stood Alexandria, 
second in dignity as its reputed founder 
St. Mark was the disciple of St. Peter. The bishop 
exercised authority over all Egypt and the province 
of Cyrene, and to this day is regarded as the head 
and founder of the Ethiopian Church.1 The power 
of an Athanasius or a Cyril over the populace of 
the great capital was almost unbounded, and the 
fame of Alexandria as one of the great centres of 
learning added to that of the bishop of a city famous 
throughout the world for its school of theology.? 

Third in rank was the capital of the 
East, the See of Antioch, where Christians 
had first gained their name. Less famous in its pre- 
sidents than Alexandria and less fortunate in their 
escaping the taint of heresy, the Church of Antioch 
held an immense position. The patriarch was acknow- 
ledged in Asia Minor and was the recognised head of 
the Armenian community, besides exercising authority 
over the vast Syriac-speaking Christian Church which 
extended to the Persian Gulf and to the more remote 
Fast. 


Constantinople. 


Alexandria. 


Antioch. 


After much dispute the Church of 
Constantinople won the second place in 
the hierarchy. Founded by neither apostle nor evan- 
gelist, the daughter of the obscure city of Byzantium, 
the Constantinopolitan community raised itself above 
the more ancient and famous churches and even pre- 
sumed to lay claim’ to rank with Rome itself. Nor 
must it be forgotten that the position of the bishop 
was more attractive if less venerable than that of the 
pope. For whereas Rome in the fifth century was 
daily sinking in wealth, opulence, and population, and 
becoming in name only the head of the world, the 
rival city was attracting all the wealth and commerce 
of the Empire, and the bishop presided over a splendid 
establishment and enjoyed the prestige of a great 
prince and potentate. But the constant presence of the 
emperor in the capital allowed the archbishop (for the 


1. Supra, pp. 438 and 556. 2. Supra, p. 271, 
3. Burkitt, Zarly Lastern Christianity, p. 35. 4. Supra, p. 535. 


570 LEADING EPISCOPAL SEES. [CH. XXL 


title was first given to this patriarch) far less in- 
dependence than his Roman colleague, and after the 
tragic fall of John Chrysostom, none of his successors 
were so much as allowed to contemplate the idea of 
freedom from imperial control.} 

Not that patriarchs alone exercised vast influence. 
Other bishops had widely extended powers. Carthage, 
for example, had authority over Roman Africa and the 
neighbouring provinces, but the Donatist schism and the 
Vandal invasion combined to lessen the power of this 
church. Arles in Gaul enjoyed a primacy of the 
churches north of the Alps. Caesarea in Cappadocia 
exercised an authority independent of the fact that it 
could number St. Basil among its bishops. In Palestine 
Caesarea Stratonis overshadowed even Jerusalem, Even 
in the less conspicuous dioceses, as we have seen in the 
case of Theodoret of Cyrus, the bishop exercised a 
widely extended jurisdiction.* 

The larger dioceses imitated the pro- 
vinces and patriarchates in so far that the 
bishop presided over others of the same rank. Sub- 
ordinate to the diocesan were local bishops called 
chorepiscopi (ywpemicxorrot). These seem undoubtedly 
to have been consecrated to the episcopal office; as a 
rule, however, only a single bishop, and not three at 
least, laid hands on them. They were allowed to ordain 
readers, exorcists, etc., but as a rule they had no right to 
admit to the priesthood or even to the diaconate. In 
some cases however the ordinations, though irregular, were 
recognised as valid. They disappeared about the ninth 
century, and their duties—those at least of a non-episcopal 
character—were discharged by the archdeacons, now no 
longer deacons but presbyters.® 

The clergy before the close of the great 
persecution were distinguished neither by 
dress nor even by occupation from the laity. A man 
on being ordained did not cease to apply himself to 


The Chorepiscopi. 


The Clergy. 


I. Supra, p. 450—SI. 
2. See supra as follows: for Carthage, pp. 263—69; Arles, p. 532; 


: 
4 
iq 
q 
7 
4 
. 
4 
: 


ee eee eT ee ee oT re ee 


Pe ae 


Pa eee a va 


Se ee ee TOL ln OE ROR (gta e 


Caesarea in Cappadocia, p. 383 ; Caesarea in Palestine, Pp. 319; diocese of ?. 


Cyrus, p. 470. 
3. Wordsworth, Ministry of Grace, p. 139. 


CH. XXL] PRIESTS AND DEACONS, 571 


his trade and reputable worldly avocations. This 
continued in a measure for a considerable time; 
and we find Pope Agatho (a.p. 678—681) explaining 
that his envoys were poor men who have to work with 
their own hands, and must not on that account be 
despised by the wealthier clergy of Constantinople.} 
It was only by degrees that the clergy were endowed, 
and also that they were distinguished when they went 
abroad by a different dress. Both St. Jerome and Pope 
Siricius condemn the last-named practice. It is a note- 
worthy fact that the words xAjpos and KAnpixos are 
never applied to bishops and not always even to priests 
and deacons, but more generally to the minor orders. 
Hi ul Paietiood From the repeated assurances we have 
‘as to the dignity of the priestly office, 
especially when contrasted with the diaconate, we are 
led to infer that its importance was often overlooked. 
In many cases the presbyters were so completely over- 
shadowed by the bishops, at least as regards their 
ministerial duties, that we are somewhat in the dark 
as to what these were. In other cases the priesthood 
seems to have encroached on the prerogatives of the 
episcopate. Even the duty of preaching was rarely 
entrusted to presbyters, though some of the most famous 
sermons of antiquity were delivered by St. John Chry- 
sostom whilst he was a priest at Antioch, and Cyril 
of Jerusalem gave his Catechetical Lectures before he 
was bishop. In Africa Augustine preached as a priest 
with the consent of his bishop, Valerius. In Rome 
only the bishop preached, and that very rarely. On 
the whole, the question of the status and functions of 
the second order of the ministry during our period is 
very complex and difficult. 
iia titebhate The diaconate was not merely a step 
" * towards the priesthood but a separate and 
very important office. According to St. Jerome the 
deacons were often better paid than the presbyters. 
The inferiority of their office was marked by their 
having to stand whilst bishop and presbyters remained 


1. Gregorovius, Rome in the Middle Ages, I1., p. 167. The letter 
of Agatho to the Emperor Constantine Pogonatus is given in Labbé, 
Conctl, D vill., 655 (according to Gregorovius). 


572 THE INFERIOR CLERGY. (cH. xxi. 


seated; but their power was great. In many churches 
their number was limited—at Rome they were but 
seven. They administered the funds and the temporal 
concerns of the church. At the Communion the presence 
of deacons—not priests acting as deacons—was indis- 
pensable. They directed the service, acted as spokesmen 
between the celebrant and the people, and administered 
the chalice.1 The chief deacon—the archdeacon in 
our modern sense is a later office—was considered the 
natural successor of the bishop. It was indeed asserted 
of the Church of Rome, but on doubtful authority, that 
the archdeacon had the right of succession.2 To make 
one of these permanent deacons a priest was nominally 
to promote, but really to degrade him to a less im- 
portant office. Leo the Great rebuked Anatolius, bishop 
of Constantinople, for venting his spite against the 
deacon Aetius by making him a priest.§ 

Besides bishops, priests, and deacons, 
we find numerous inferior clergy—sub- 
deacons, acolytes, exorcists, readers, etc. Cornelius of 
Rome, writing A.D. 251 to Fabius of Antioch, says that 
in the Roman Church there are 46 presbyters, 7 deacons, 
7 sub-deacons, 42 acolytes, 52 exorcists and readers 
together with door-keepers.4 The subdiaconate is now 
reckoned among the higher orders of the Roman Church; 
but this is only since Innocent III. in the thirteenth 
century. In early days it was considered a minor order; 
and it is primarily of Roman origin. Despite its Greek 
name the acolyte is a purely Roman office’ The 
exorcist is of earlier origin, and is a survival of the 
old charismatic ministry. Primarily he took charge of 
the energumens or possessed persons, but he also pre- 
pared candidates for baptism. The reader was perhaps 
a survival of the ‘minister’ of the Jewish synagogue. 
He took charge of the books of the church. It was an 
ancient office, and, as may be remembered, the Emperor 
Julian was admitted to it.® 


The minor Orders. 


Wordsworth, Ministry of Grace, p. 158. 2. ¢. p. 162. 
Supra, p. 536. 

Eusebius, 4. #. V1. 43. 

Wordsworth, of. cé¢., p. 184. 


Supra, p. 355. 


is ele Boge! 


CH. XxXI.} WORK OF WOMEN.—CELIBACY. 573 


The co-operation of women in the 
work of evangelising the world was re- 
cognised from the first, and we find it 
acknowledged in the New Testament. In the fourth 
century the female ministry was more or less in existence 
throughout the East; but in the Western Church it does 
not seem to have made much progress. Church widows, 
as in the Pastoral Epistles, existed from the earliest times, 
and were put on the roll (karddoyos) of the churches,} 
In some cases they enjoyed a sort of precedence in 
church as ‘presbyteresses’ (apeoButides).2 Their duties 
are defined to be attendance at prayer, ministration to 
the sick, exhorting the younger women to live chastely, 
and missionary work. Deaconesses were recognised in 
the East as a regular order, and, unlike the presbyteresses, 
were in some cases ordained to their office. In some 
instances they were not admitted till. they were at least 
forty years of age. They tooka special part in baptizing 
the women and in being the means of communication 
between the bishop and females of his flock. One of 
the most famous deaconesses was Olympias, the rich and 
pious friend of St. John Chrysostom.* 

As a rule the clergy in the fourth 
century were married men, though the 
prejudice in favour of celibacy was 
continually increasing, especially in the West. Very 
frequently, when a married man was raised to the 
episcopate, he and his wife resolved to live in chastity 
for the rest of their days; but Synesius when made a 
bishop absolutely declined to be bound by any such 
arrangement.6 ‘The Apostolical Constitutions and the 
Apostolic Canons, the Council of Nicaea guided by the 
ascetic bishop Paphnutius,® and the Canons of Gangra,’ 
all refuse to insist on clerical celibacy, though marriage 
after ordination is forbidden; but the Spanish council 
of Elvira (a.p. 306) and the Roman bishop Siricius 
{A.D 348—398) strictly enjoin it. 


Ministry of 
women, 


Marriage of the 
clergy. 


Tis Lim. Vs 9. 2. Dict. Chr. Antig., s.v. ‘Widows’. 
Wordsworth, of. ctt., p. 36, for the deaconesses in the Didascalia, 
also chap. Vv. on women’s work. 
4. Supra, p. 475. 5. Supra, p. 438. 
6. Supra, p. 320. 7. Canon Iv. 


574 COUNCILS.—CHURCH BUILDINGS. [CH. XXII. 


Councils had become a very prominent 
Couneilgand part of Church administration and were 
especially frequent in the fourth and fifth 
centuries. They had been common even in the days of 
persecution. In Cyprian’s time assemblies were held 
annually in Africa to determine disputed cases, and in 
Cappadocia we are told that the same rule was observed 
by Cyprian’s contemporary, Firmilian of Caesarea. 
According to the 5th Canon of Nicaea and the A postolic 
Canons, councils were to be held in the spring and 
autumn in every province.1 Universal or General 
Councils were only possible when the Church had peace 
and was protected by the imperial authority. The 
bishops were regarded as the representatives of their 
respective churches, and voted and subscribed to the 
decrees of the assembly. In case, however, a bishop 
could not be present, his delegates could sign in his 
name. The Roman bishops established a tradition 
from Nicaea onward of never attending a council away 
from the city if they could possibly avoid it. At the 
earliest General Councils they were represented by 
delegates.2, The advice of doctors of the Church and 
theologians who were not bishops was taken, and in 
the fifth century monks obtruded themselves into the 
deliberations of councils, and often influenced their 
decisions.2 The Canons passed became the law of the 
district or province, or of the Church Universal; and 
Canons of even small councils have found their way into 
the canon law of the Church.* 
Even before the Diocletian persecution 
ae taen *® the Christian churches were public build- 
ings and conspicuous objects in the great 
cities. Christian worship was essentially congregational, 
and the buildings had to be adapted to large audiences. 
We have examples of churches of the third century in 
Rome, Africa, and Syria; but naturally those of the 
period after Constantine had obtained the supreme 
I. Supra, p. 319. 


2. Notably at Nicaea (supra, p. 304), Chalcedon (supra, p. 472), 
Lede and the Lactrocinium (supra, p. 536). 

3. Supra, p. 471. 

4- Hefele, Counczls, vol. 1., pp. 20 ff. 

5. Dict. Chr. Antiq., art. Church’, vol, I., p. 366. 


CH. XxI.] MAGNIFICENCE OF CHURCHES. 575 


power are more characteristic of triumphant Chris- 
tianity, for example the church at Tyre described by 
Eusebius.} 

The churches built in the fourth and fifth centuries 
were of two kinds. The basilican or ‘ dromical’ was an 
oblong building with an apse at one end, sometimes 
at both, and a broad nave with aisles on each side. 
The altar stood in the chord of the arc of the apse, and 
in the centre of the apse against the wall was the 
cathedva or chair of the bishop; the clergy sat on 
benches on either side of him. There were also round 
churches built over the remains of martyrs or as 
memorials, the most famous being that of the Holy 
Sepulchre at Jerusalem. The altar was railed in to 
prevent the possibility of profanation, the screen being 
generally open—the iconostasis, which at the present 
time renders the altar invisible in the East, being a 
later adaptation of the earlier barrier. Old St. Peter’s 
at Rome, which was built by Constantine, and was only 
removed by Pope Julius II. (a.p. 1503—1513), to make 
room for the modern church, was an excellent example 
of a basilica of the fourth century. The church of 
St. Paul ‘outside the walls’, restored after the fire in 
1823 in its original form, gives a good idea of the 
church of this period. 

The churches themselves were often 
lavishly decorated. Here is a description 
of what the pilgrim Etheria (formerly 
known as Sylvia) saw at Jerusalem about a.p. 385 :— 

“Now it would be superfluous to describe the 
adornment either of the Church, or of the Anastasis, 
or of the Cross, or in Bethlehem on that day (Epiphany) ; 
you see there is nothing but gold and gems and silk. 
For if you look at the veils they are made wholly of 
silk striped with gold, and if you look at the curtains 
they are made wholly of silk striped with gold. The 
church vessels too, of every kind, gold and jewelled, are 
brought out on that day, and indeed, who could reckon 
or describe the number and weight of the candles 
(cereofala) or of the tapers (cicindelae), or of the lanterns, 


Decorations of 
the churches. 


Rd BATS BX « 45§. 63. 


576 BAPTISMAL CEREMONIAL, (cH. xx1,_ 


or of the various vessels. And what shall I say of 
the fabric itself, which Constantine, under his mother’s 
influence, decorated with gold, mosaics and costly 
marbles, as far as the resources of his kingdom 
allowed him.’’} | 

The ceremony of baptism was perhaps 
the most impressive in the early Church, 
and it was celebrated at the greatest festivals and 
frequently only at the cathedral church. Buildings were 
attached to certain churches for the reception of the 
very large number of candidates for the sacrament. 
On the Thursday before Easter when St. John Chrysos- 
tom was arrested, he had already baptized three thousand 
men and many more were awaiting the rite.2_ For such 
ceremonies extensive buildings were required, and, as 
baptism was almost invariably by immersion, a very 
large supply of water. | 

In the Catechetical Lectuves of Cyril of Jerusalem 
we have a full account of a baptismal ceremony at 
Easter. After delivering a Procatechesis or introduction, 
eighteen lectures on the duties of a Christian believer 
and on the Creed, Cyril gave further lectures to his 
hearers after their baptism in order to explain the 
nature of the mysteries into which they had been 
initiated. 

First, he tells them they entered the vestibule 
(rpoavAvov) of the baptistery, and facing westward 
renounced Satan, saying “I renounce thee, Satan, and 
all thy works, and all thy pomp, and all thy service.” 
Turning then to the east, the place of light, the can- 
didates declared their belief in the Trinity and in one 
baptism. Next they entered the inner chamber of the 


Baptism. 


baptistery and put off their clothes, and were anointed 


with oil “from the hairs of your head to your feet”. 
The oil had been exorcised and was ‘“‘a charm to drive 
away every trace of hostile influence”. After this the 
candidates entered the pool (xodvuS7Opa) and were asked 
their belief in Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. The im- 
mersion which followed was threefold and completed 
the actual baptism. The newly baptized were now 


1. Holy Week in Serusalem. (S.P.C.K.). 2 Supra, p. 449. 


| 
. 
, 
q 


CH, XXI.] LITURGY AT JERUSALEM. 577 


anointed, first on the forehead, then on the ears, nostrils 
and breast. ‘“ Having been counted worthy of this holy 
Chrism,” the preacher assured them, “ye are called 
Christians.” ‘The candidates, clothed in white garments, 
now proceeded to receive the Eucharist.! 

; The Liturgy, as the Communion Service 
Rue a aes Pe iaicalis called, may be said to have 
already received a more or less stereotyped form in the 
different Churches. The subject of Liturgiology is, how- 
ever, one which cannot be treated in a brief description 
of the main features of church life; and here it must 
suffice to follow Cyril’s description of what took place 
in Jerusalem at the middle of the fourth century. First 
the deacon brought water to the officiant, probably the 
bishop, who is distinguished by the title of ‘epevs, and 
after he had washed, the presbyters who stood round 
the altar did the same. Then follows the kiss of peace, 
the deacon crying “ Receive one another; and let us 
kiss one another.” The priest says “Lift up your 
hearts,” and “Let us give thanks unto the Lord,” the 
response to each respectively being “ We lft them up 
unto the Lord,” and “It is meet and right.” ‘After 
this”’ says Cyril ““we make mention of all Creation, 
Angels, Archangels, etc., and of the Seraphim, who cried 
Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord of Sabaoth.” After these 
hymns prayers were made to God to sanctify the gifts 
lying before Him by His: Holy Spirit, that the Bread 
may become the Body and the Wine the Blood of 
our Saviour, “for whatsoever the Holy Ghost has 
' touched the same is sanctified and changed.” After 
the ‘spiritual sacrifice’ of the ‘bloodless service’ is 
completed, prayers are made for the peace of the 
world, for the emperors, soldiers, and allies of the 
Romans, for the sick and afflicted, etc. This is followed 
by a commemoration of Patriarchs, Prophets, Martyrs, 
etc., and those who have fallen asleep. The prayers 
conclude with the Lord’s Prayer, and at the Amen 
the priests proclaim “Holy things for the holy,” and 
the people respond “One is Holy, One is the Lord, 
Jesus Christ.” ‘Then the chanter’s voice invited the people 


1. Cyr. Hier., Catechesis xx. (de Myst. 11.) 
@o 


578 POPULARITY OF PREACHING. (CHY xx” 


“with a sacred melody” to communicate, singing 
“© taste and see that the Lord is good.” The com- 
munion is to be made with all reverence; the left 
hand is to support the right and the palm is to be 
hollowed as the right hand is to be a throne to ‘re- 
ceive the King of kings’. After receiving both the Bread 
and the Wine the communicant is to say ‘Amen’. The 
service concludes with a short thanksgiving. It must 
be borne in mind that this description is given in a 
series of popular lectures to candidates for Baptism, 
and one must not therefore look for more than a general 
outline of the service; but Cyril certainly gives us 
enough to shew the main features of a fourth-century 
Liturgy and of the many correspondences which it 
has to the service to which we are accustomed. By the 
end of the century the ceremonial tended to become 
more and more imposing, and the awfulness of the 
mystery to be more forcibly asserted, where the moment 
of consecration is said to have been more clearly defined 
as time went on. 

Church oratory, perhaps, attained its 
zenith at the close of the fourth century, 
especially at Antioch and Constantinople, where it 
reached an excellence, perhaps never since attained, in 
the eloquence of St. John Chrysostom. Grammar and 
rhetoric in the widest sense of these terms were the main 
subjects of education, and everybody was encouraged to 
make himself proficient in the art of oratory. Strange 
as it may seem, all the great preachers of this period— 
Basil, the Gregorys, and Chrysostom himself—studied 
under the heathen orator Libanius. In his treatise 
De Sacerdotio, the last-named gives a most amusing 
account of the difficulties of a popular preacher. The 
congregations were most critical, and if a man had a 
reputation he had to preach in accordance with it, or 
to learn that he had disappointed his audience. Nor 
had he to wait to know what their verdict was. If 
the congregation heard him in silence, his discourse 
was a failure. When, on the contrary, he caught the 
fancy of the people, clapping of hands and loud cries 


Preaching. 


1. See Srawley, Zarly History of the Eucharist, p. 209 f. 


. 
. 


CH. Xx1.] GRADES OF PENITENCE. 579 


of applause welcomed every well-rounded period! As 
a rule, however, the sermons were extremely scriptural, 
and often whole books or epistles were explained verse 
by verse from the pulpit. Sometimes the most mys- 
terious doctrines of the Faith were expounded to mixed 
audiences, presupposing a very high standard of education 
and intelligence. Chrysostom, on the other hand, is an 
extremely practical moralist, and to him we are indebted 
for a vivid description of the foibles of society both in 
Antioch and Constantinople. The influence of sermons 
was immense. Gregory of Nazianzus won back Con- 
stantinople to orthodoxy by his famous discourses.? In 
Milan, Ambrose, a careful student of Basil, owed much 
of his influence to his preaching, which, as we have 
seen, had a great effect on Augustine.® 

Discipline was relaxing in severity, 
but was more systematized than it had 
been in early days. In ancient times 
penance was regarded not so much as a penalty as 
a privilege. As we have seen, the question was as 
to whether the Church had the power under any cir- 
cumstances whatever to readmit to communion a man 
guilty of a heinous offence. Now, however, there 
was a tendency to regard penance as a penal instru- 
ment in the hands of the clergy to secure good order 
among their flocks. The delinquent had first to make 
a public confession of sin, and then had to work 
his way through the different degrees and stations of 
‘penitence’ according to his guilt. These are first 
mentioned by Gregory Thaumaturgus in the third 
century, but they were formally systematized by the 
legislation of the fourth. The essence of penitential 
discipline being loss of status, the sinner was degraded, 
and the lowest state to which he could be assigned 
was one in which he might not even join in the prayers 
of the faithful. Outside the church, exposed to the 
weather, the sinner had to stand and confess his sin 
and to intercede for the prayers of the people. In some 
cases this penance lasted for years. ‘The lowest class 
of penitents were known as mourners; after this the 


Penitential 
discipline, 


1. Chrys., de Sacer. IV. 5. 2. Supra, p. 394. 3. Supra, p. 493. 
00 2 


580 THE CHRISTIAN YEAR. (CH. xx1. 


sinner was promoted to the second grade, the hearers, — 


who with the heathen might listen to the reading of 
Scripture in the narthex or porch of the church; next 
he became a kneeley among the catechumens, but de- 
parted before the Canon of the Liturgy began; and 
finally he was allowed to be present at the Mass but 
not as acommunicant. ‘These divisions did not prevail 
everywhere, and public penance fell rapidly everywhere 
into general disuse.? : 

The Christian year was beginning to 
assume somewhat of its present form by 
the close of the fourth century. Sunday was protected by 
the legislation of Constantine; and in the Theodosian 
code Saturday, still known as ‘the Sabbath’, is mentioned 
as a holy-day second only to Sunday, with special 
prayers and services. The Roman Church observed 
it as a fast. Wednesday and Friday had long been 
kept as days of abstinence. Easter was naturally 
the central festival. It was preceded by a fast 
which varied considerably in its duration, and the 
‘Preparation day’ (Good Friday) was kept with great 
solemnity. There were many striking ceremonies on the 
Easter festival, especially the lighting of the lamps, and 
it was the chief season for Baptisms. The other great 
festivals were Pentecost and Christmas. ‘The latter 
seems to have been of Roman origin, whereas the 
Epiphany was rather an Oriental festival commemora- 
tive of the Manifestation including the Birth of Christ. 
Gradually the whole Church practically accepted the 
birth-day of the Saviour as December 25th, despite the 
fact that it was necessary for Christian teachers to warn 
their flocks against connecting it with the worship of 
the sun at the winter solstice. The Nativity of St. John 
the Baptist at Midsummer was one of the earliest and 
most popular festivals of the Church. As a rule the 
birth-days of martyrs (natalitia) were the days of their 
sufferings, and were celebrated at their tombs. Ata 
slightly later date the days of St. Stephen, St. Peter, 
St. Paul, and the Maccabees were festivals held in 


Holy Days. 


I. Supra, p. 236-7. Perhaps these elaborate grades of penitents never 
existed in their entirety. 


+ 


oy oe = F 
ON a ee i a 


CH. xxI.] CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS. 581 


especial honour. Local martyrs were honoured on their 
*birth-days,’ and churches erected in their honour. 
. ; The reproach of ill-judged and in- 
discriminate charity cannot be made 
against the primitive Church. The Pas- 
toral Epistles are models of practical good sense, and 
St. Paul was fully alive to the danger of pauperising his 
converts. By the time of Julian charitable institutions 
had become a characteristic and most important feature 
of the Christian system, and that emperor exhorts the 
heathen priesthood to emulate and surpass their rivals 
in this respect. Monasticism, especially as organized 
by St. Basil, gave a great impetus in this direction. 
The hospital (hospitium or hospitale) was originally, 
as its name implies and as it survives in the word Aé¢e, 
intended for the reception of guests, and’ as the poor 
were the most welcome guests to a true Christian the 
words fevodoyetov and mtwyotpodetov are almost inter- 
changeable. Eustathius of Sebaste may have led the 
way by establishing hospitals, but probably they had 
been in existence long before the middle of the fourth 
century. Basil regarded the lepers, whom it was cus- 
tomary to drive out of the cities, with especial solicitude, 
and is said to have devoted a portion of his hospital 
specially for them.! Chrysostom enlarges on the charity 
of the Church of Constantinople towards the poor, the 
aged, and the sick; nor was Rome behindhand in this 
respect. In times of pestilence, as we have seen, the 
courage and devotion of the Christians was constantly 
conspicuous. The parabolani, especially at Alexandria, 
devoted themselves to the care of the sick, and at 
Constantinople the copiatae made it their special duty 
to conduct the funerals of the poor. 
ot The tendency towards materializing 
ai eicooe. the spiritual facts of the Gospel was grow- 
| ing in strength throughout this period. 
Christianity, whilst retaining the sublime doctrines of 
the Deity as pure Spirit, demanded more and more 


Hospitals, 
Charities, etc. 


1. Two English books which may be studied with advantage on 
St. Basil have appeared almost simultaneously; by Mr. Morrison on 
St. Basil and his Rule, and by W. K. L, Clarke, St. Basil the Great. 


582 RELICS.—PILGRIMAGE, | (cH. XXI._ 


insistently tangible objects of devotion. In the later 
days of persecution, the martyrs had attracted venera- 
tion, and their remains were preserved and not un- 
frequently superstitiously adored. By the close of the 
fourth century the remains of the martyrs began to be 
credited with magical powers over daemons and diseases, 
as is attested by such men as Basil and Ambrose, 
Chrysostom and Augustine. Mention has already been 
made of the discovery of the true Cross; but an earlier 
relic is mentioned by Eusebius as having been preserved 
at Jerusalem in the chair of St. James, the Lord’s brother 
and first bishop of Jerusalem. A fortunate priest 
discovered the tombs of St. Stephen, Nicodemus, and 
Gamaliel. The head of the Baptist was found in Cilicia 
in A.D. 330; in 390 it was removed to Constantinople. 
A second head was fortunately unearthed at Emesa in 
A.D. 454! All the sites of importance mentioned in 
the Old and New Testament were carefully located ; 
and for many of these we have no earlier evidence 
than the fourth century. The visit of Helena to 
Jerusalem and the lavish gifts of her son Constantine 
to the Holy City stimulated inquiry and discovery. 
Altars had been placed over relics from a very early 
date indeed, and to the present day the law of the 
Roman church is that every altar must contain relics. 
If the superstition of the fourth century was less than 
that of a later age, the materialism which prompted 
it was already on the increase. 

St. Helena’s visit to Jerusalem did 
much to encourage the vast influx of 
pious visitors who poured into the Holy Land before 
the close of the century; and five years after her visit 
a pilgrim who journeyed from Bordeaux to Jerusalem has 
left us a record of his experiences. At Jerusalem he saw 
the pools made by Solomon, the two pools of Bethesda, 
the crypt where Solomon confined evil spirits, the place 
where Solomon wrote the book of Wisdom, and a great 
many other interesting sites. The places connected with 
our Lord were the pinnacle of the Temptation, the house 
of Caiaphas, the pillar where Christ was scourged, the 


Pilgrimage. 


walls of Pilate’s palace, mount Golgotha outside the © 


city, the Sepulchre, over which Constantine had built 


CH. XxI.] PILGRIMAGE OF ETHERIA. 583 


his church, the grave of Lazarus, and the mount of 
the Transfiguration.? 

A third record of an early pilgrimage is the 
Peregrinatio Silviae, discovered in 1887. It was sup- 
posed that the pilgrim was Silvia, sister of Theodosius’ 
minister, Rufinus, but it appears that she was actually 
named Etheria, an abbess in Gaul or Spain, who visited 
Jerusalem with much pious pomp towards the end of 
the fourth century. The document is of especial value 
owing to the important contribution it makes to our 
liturgical knowledge. Rome also began to become 
a place of pilgrimage, especially on account of the 
opening up of the Catacombs by Pope Damasus. The 
danger of pilgrimages morally and spiritually was 
recognised by some of the Fathers, and Jerome warns 
people against undue confidence in the merits of a 
visit to the Holy Land. | 

It is evident from the foregoing that the 
Strange customs Christian religion had already lost much 
and survivals of : 4 a : 
Paganism, Of its early simplicity, and was uncon- 
sciously conforming itself to many of the 
ideas of the heathenism which it was supplanting. 
Everywhere there are evidences of the influence of the 
older religions on the Church, which is not to be 
wondered at, when we recollect that it was being 
flooded by new converts who were at best very imperfect 
Christians. In some cases a certain conformity with 
the more innocent features of paganism was deliberately 
practised. St. Paulinus of Nola, for example, evidently 
endeavoured to adapt his teaching as far as possible 
to the understanding of the people of Campania who 
dwelt around his monastery, and some of his poems 
about St. Felix relate stories which might easily have 
been told of a local tutelary deity.2 But paganism 
insinuated itself into Christianity in many forms. The 
subject is a vast one, and here it is only possible to 
give a few examples by way of illustration. Sacred 
trees, wells, mountains, were being taken over by 
Christians as places if not objects of worship. Heathen 


1. Dict. Chr. Antig., art. ‘ Pilgrimage’, vol. 11, p. 1635 d 
2. Supra, p. 420. 


584 STRENGTH OF PAGANISM. (cH, xxr., 


legends were constantly reappearing among the acts — 
of the Saints. The eve of St. John the Baptist (June 24) 
was in many places celebrated by the lighting and 
leaping over fires, as had been customary at Midsummer 
in honour of the sun. Animals were killed at the doors 
of churches and at the shrines of saints in a manner 
hardly distinguishable. from the ancient sacrifices;} 
and it may be said generally that, great as was the 
break with the past by the introduction of Christianity, 
the clergy sought to make it as small as was possible. 
ints fs It is a varied picture that Church 
uniformity, life presents during the momentous years 
which followed the conversion of Con- 
stantine; but despite the many criticisms to which it 
is open—the growing corruption, the increase of super-- 
stition, the materialism so detrimental to Christianity— 
we must not forget that many Christians realised better 
even than perhaps they do at the present time that 
the Faith is not an affair of ceremonial and usage, 
but that these things are of but secondary importance. 
Among Christian writers there are few more sensible 
and in the best sense modern than the historian Socrates, 
who lived in Constantinople about a.p. 430, and was 
a lawyer by profession. In the close of his fifth book 
he breaks off into a digression on the subject of church. 
usages, including the keeping of, Easter, in which he 
quotes St. Paul, and plainly says that the Faith in Christ 
is not a ceremonial religion, and that the times of 
keeping festivals and fasts and the customs of the. 
churches are matters of complete indifference. He shews 
how various these customs are, how the observance of 
the Lenten fast varies in almost every church, how in 
Egypt they sometimes celebrate the Eucharist in the 
evening and partake of it though they have taken food 
in the daytime. He notes the difference in dealing 
with penitents in the churches and has no word to 
say in blame of variety of usage. It was not every- 
body who shared in this enlightened spirit; but it 
must never be forgotten that if the fourth and fifth 


1. I have heard Mr. F. C. Conybeare assert that in Armenia in 
early days animal sacrifice in front of the churches was regarded almost 
as important as the Eucharist ! 


CH, XXI.] WHAT A MONK IS, 585 


centuries are called the days of the ‘undivided Church’ 
- unity was not secured by a monotonous uniformity or 
the tyranny of customs.’ 

But by far the greatest force in the 
fourth century was the movement in the 
direction of a monastic life. If the impulse had been 
previously felt in many other religions, in the case of 
the men of the fourth century it may be considered as 
primarily Christian. It was the word of Christ to the 
young ruler, “Go sell all thou hast,’’ which compelled 
Antony to take refuge in the desert, and it was the 
thought of the example of Antony and the monks of 
Egypt which made Augustine decide finally to throw in 
his lot with Christ. Before, however, proceeding to 
describe the rise of monasticism it is advisable to state 
what it was not. From the earliest days Christians set 
high store on a virgin life in both sexes, but a man who 
practised a life-long continence was not by any means 
necessarily a monk any more than a church virgin was a 
nun. ‘The essential qualification for monastic life was 
complete withdrawal from the world—originallyfrom the 
haunts of civilized man. Nor can tne first monks be 
rightly described as clergy. The movement was almost 
exclusively lay, and the acceptance of holy orders was 
regarded as a hindrance to the monastic career. A 
bishop by reason of his duties could never be a true 
monk: he might practise monastic austerities; but his 
duties forbade him to withdraw from the world. Soli- 
tude is implied in the very word monk (ovayos) as the 
desert is suggested by hermit (é€pnuerexos). 

The first monks or hermits fled from the world in 
order to be alone in solitude with God. Even the great 
persecution was unable to hinder the rapid assimilation 
of the church to the world which had characterised the 
third century, and those who desired the monastic life 
felt that life in the world was not compatible with the 
Christian profession. With the end of persecution, 
moreover, one of the great incentives for the best men 
to become Christians was gone. Tertullian was right 
when he said Sanguis Christianorum semen eorum ;* for the 


Monasticism. 


1. Socrates, H. Z. v. 22. 2. Apol. c. 50, 


536 CAUSES OF MONASTICISM. (CH. XxI. 


prospect of having to contend for Christ and if need 
be to die for Him had an undoubted attraction for 
brave men and women. When this was taken away, 
Christianity did not seem to some more attractive than 
other religions. But monastic seclusion supplied the 
lacking stimulus. When it was realised that it was 
possible to give up all that the world thought desirable 
for Christ, and to inflict on oneself voluntary austerities 
which rivalled the sufferings of the martyrs of old, to be 
‘“devoured’’ as Jacob had been by the burning heat by 
day and the frost by night,’ to wander about, as the 
faithful in the days of the Maccabees,? in sheep-skins 
and goat-skins and in dens and caves of the earth, 
the attraction of this new form of Christianity became 
irresistible. The war against the world which had 
hitherto been waged in the presence of the magistrate 
could now be carried on among the beasts of the wilder- 
ness. It has been the fashion to describe monasticism as 
a sort of sublime selfishness, a withdrawal from the 
sterner duties of social life; but when we recollect the 
circumstances of the time we can understand that it was 
a nobler impulse which drove some of the best men to 
take refuge in solitude, often to return to activity 
to conquer new realms for Christ. The monastic moye- 
ment was the great protest against the increasing 
worldliness of the Church of the fourth century. 
As there had been extravagances in 
eaavaganees martyrdom so were there in monasticism, 
which in many cases became a gross 
travesty of self-sacrifice. Asceticism is really the 
discipline to which every Christian man ought to sub- 
mit himself, and those who have denounced it as 
unchristian have in practice made it a part of their 
Christian life. But an unreasoned and undisciplined 
asceticism becomes at times absurd and even disgusting. 
Monks called themselves athletes, and like modern 
athletes tried to break the record. ‘Thus when some 
extraordinary act of self-denial was reported another 
solitary was usually found anxious to outdo it. Solitude 
also had a baneful influence, and even in early days 


1. Gen. xxxi. 40. 2. '-Heb. xi. 37. 


CH. XXI.] CENOBITIC LIFE. 587 


monastic writers speak of that irritability and disgust of 
life afterwards known as accedia. But in Syria especially 
the wildest extravagances were indulged in by solitaries, 
who wandered about reducing themselves to the level 
of the very beasts of the fields. These excesses are not 
surprising; what is, is the way the best minds in the 
Church turned the monastic movement into channels 
beneficial alike to religion and humanity. 

Antony, whom we may regard as the first monk, began 
as a hermit, but it was impossible for him to remain 
alone. A great ascetic was sure to be followed by count- 
less imitators desirous of learning his methods by 
personal contact. Thus the deserts of Egypt became 
peopled with colonies of hermits. 

A great step in advance was made 
when the ideal that even in solitude 
certain social duties were incumbent upon those who 
had embraced what was then considered as the higher 
life, and monastic leaders began to organize communi- 
ties under definite regulations. The first to do this was 
the Egyptian Pachomius, at Tabennesi (see map). But 
the greatest of early monastic organizers was St. Basil, 
bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, under whom monks 
were strictly disciplined and kept constantly at work and 
prayer. His communities with their charitable organ- 
izations were taken as the model of Eastern monasticism, 
and his rule continues, though only nominally, to be 
observed. His monastic and ecclesiastical foundations 
were so great, that Gregory of Nazianzus, his friend, com- 
pared them to a second city of Caesarea. All the great 
authorities on monastic life—Basil, Cassian and Jerome— 
visited Egypt, and conversed with the famous solitaries 
of the Scetic and Nitrian deserts. 

But it was as organized communities that the monks 
became a great influence, and that the movement spread. 
Monks, it is said, first appeared in Rome when Athan- 
asius made his famous appeal to Julius in A.D. 340; 
and by the close of the century monasteries were 
everywhere, from remote Britain to the lands beyond 
the eastern frontiers of the Empire; and for over a 
thousand years Christianity found its strongest arm in 
the cloisters of the monks. There they acquired training 


Cenobitic life. 


588 CENOBITIC LIFE. (CH. XXI. 


and discipline, an education impossible elsewhere in the 
disordered condition of society. Founded with the idea 
of withdrawing men from the world, the monasteries 
became the means of qualifying them for its service 
as missionaries, as teachers, and as rulers of the 
Church, 


APPENDIX A. 


ON THE OPHITES, BASILIDES, AND VALENTINUS. 


I. THe OPHITES, 


THE highest Being was termed the Primal 
Man, from whom came forth his Thought 
(€voa), also a male principle, who is called the Second Man. 
In this conception we see the Adam Kadmon of the Kabbala. 
The two first principles generated the Spirit, a female principle, 
and in this way we have a travesty of the Christian doctrine 
of the Trinity. The Spirit, known as the First Woman, 
produced Christ. These two latter principles were taken up 
to the abode of the First and Second Man, and thus the true 
Church was formed. | 

When the Spirit and Christ were taken up 
a drop of light fell into the abyss beneath. This 
was Sophia Prunikos, who by contact with the waters gave 
birth to Ialdabaoth, the Demiurgus of the created heavens and 
earth and the ruler of the seventh heaven. From him came 
the six angels who rule the six heavens. He strove to hide the 
fact that there were any powers above him; but when he 
boasted that he was the highest, his mother Sophia cried, 
‘Thou liest, Ialdabaoth!’ Man was created by 
the six angels and by Ialdabaoth, who gave 
him the divine essence. Instructed by Sophia, man gave 
thanks to the Most High, which deeply offended the ruler of 
the seventh heaven. In order to degrade man by carnal 
. desires, Ialdabaoth made Eve, but Sophia saved him by means 


Emanations. 


Creation. 


Creation of man. 


590 APPENDIX A. 


of the Serpent, who induced Eve to raise herself and her 
husband by eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and 
evil. The Serpent thus became the great benefactor of the 
human race. 

But man had to be redeemed from the 
wrath of Ialdabaoth; accordingly Christ de- 
scended from above on the one perfect man, Jesus, who had 
been prepared by Sophia. Ialdabaoth seeing in Jesus Christ 
a power superior to himself, stirred up the Jews to crucify Jesus. 
Of course Christ could not suffer; and he withdrew himself 
from Jesus in whom he had worked on earth. Christ did not, 
however, forget Jesus utterly, but raised from the dead the 
spiritual body of ‘Jesus, which remained on earth eighteen 
months. At first Jesus did not fully understand the truth, 
but Christ enlightened him and he taught his disciples the 
true doctrine. 


Redemption. 


The Ophite sects were considerably divided, 
some regarding the Serpent as the enemy, others 
as the friend, of man. The former held that 
the punishment Ialdabaoth inflicted on the Serpent for his 
share in tempting Eve converted him into man’s enemy, whilst 
the more consistent Ophites portrayed the Serpent as good and 
beneficent, and interpreted our Lord’s words to Nicodemus 
about the brazen serpent to mean that Christ was the true 
Ophis. 


The Cainites. 


View of the 
Serpent. 


The most extreme Ophites held that Ialda- 
baoth, the God of the Old Testament, was the 
active enemy of righteousness. All the worst characters of the 
Old Testament were therefore really the best men, Cain being 
the most admirable of mankind with the exception of Judas 
Iscariot. The latter by betraying our Lord was really doing 
an act of wisdom and hastening the redemption of the world.* 
The Cainites are accused of having striven to imitate in their 
lives the characters in the Old Testament for whom they 
professed an admiration. 


1. King, Guostics and their Remains, p. 70. 


PP gS Ena, 


a Ri na Toth RT ee gh St ed 
OE ee ee RD ey et a ee 


APPENDIX A. 591 


II. BaAsILipgs. 


BASILIDES is considered one of the best types of Egyptian 
Gnosticism, and according to Hippolytus he borrowed his 
system from Aristotle. This Father, however, hints at the truth 
when he says, after describing the heretical opinions of Basilides, 
“These then are the things which Basilides fables, who taught 
in Egypt, and having learned the wisdom from the Egyptians, 
brought forth such fruits as these.”4 It seems from this that 
Hippolytus also regards the theory of Basilides as an adaptation 
of the esoteric doctrine of the Egyptian priesthood, and in this 
_ he is probably more correct than when he asserts that Basilides 

plagiarised from Aristotle. 

Basilides taught that the only way in which the supreme 
God could be defined was to say that he was not. Here he 
follows Aristotle’s ‘thought of a thought’. He calls God the 
‘no being’ (6 otk dv). This Not-being God made the not- 
being world, or the seed of the world containing the possibility 
of all things that exist. ‘The seed of the world was” says 
Basilides “this word that was spoken: ‘Let there be light.’ 
And to this the Evangelist refers by his words: ‘That was 
the true light which enlightened every man coming into the 
world’.” In this seed there was a triple sonship: the fine or 
subtile, the grosser material, and the mixed. The first of these 
rose to the Not-Being; the second ascended by a wing such 
as Plato in the Phaedo terms the wings of the soul; the third 
remained in the savomepyia or seed of the universe. The 
Holy Spirit acted as the firmament or boundary between the 
infinite and the finite. Now that finite and infinite were 
separated the work of creation began. First the great Archon 
or ruler of the 365 Heavens, whose name is Abraxas, comes 
forth. He has a son wiser than himself, who was in truth the 
third person in the ‘not being’ seed. Afterwards the lesser 
Archon called the Hebdomad was produced, to rule over the 
sphere which lies below the moon. This lesser Archon is the 


I. Hippolytus, vit. 15. Irenaeus, Haer., cap. xxiv. foll. 


592. APPENDIX A. 


God of the Jews. Below these rulers lies the Amorphia or 
unformedness, containing however all the remaining sonship. 
But all needed enlightenment, and accordingly, when the time 
came for the manifestation of the sons of God, the Gospel 
came, penetrating through every dominion and power, all 
receiving it with joy till it descended through the Hebdomad 
to Jesus, the son of Mary. Basilides’ idea of redemption was 


the union of all the sonship with the infinite, and the putting ~ 


of all things in their true place. The work of the restoration 
of all things consists in placing all things, now in the confusion 
of the seed heap, in their proper order, thus bringing about 
perfect contentment and perfect peace. 

The most noticeable feature in the ingenious speculations 
_ of Basilides is the entire absence of dualism. There is no 
being antagonistic to the will of the supreme God. Ignorance 


and confusion are the only evils, and these are removed by 


the true knowledge rearranging all things. 

From Basilides we are led naturally to Valentinus, another 
Egyptian Gnostic teacher, who may justly be termed the Poet 
of Gnosticism. | 


III. VALENTINUS. 


NOTHING can suggest more forcibly the deep gulf which 


divides the spirit of Christianity from that of Gnosticism, than 
the contrast between the bewildering intricacy of the system 


of Valentinus and the profound simplicity of the language of — 


the Gospel of St. John, with which it has a seeming affinity. 


This complexity, however, was nevertheless the cause of the 
great popularity the doctrine of Valentinus enjoyed. It had 


the additional attraction of being eclectic, combining as it did 


a variety of Greek, Oriental and Christian speculations.’ It 


greatly resembles the system of Basilides, but is more elaborate, 


and the abstractions in the scheme of that teacher are per-— 
sonified by Valentinus. The main point to be noticed is the | 


1. Irenaeus, Haer., bk. 1, Hippolytus, vi., ce. 16—32. Mansel, 
Gnostic Heretics, Lect. XI. . 


APPENDIX A. 593 


adoption of the Platonic teaching that the perfect patterns or 
ideas of the things we see exist in the spiritual world above. 

The Valentinian theory is as follows. The 
Pleroma consists of three orders of Aeons: the 
ogdoad, the decad, and the dodecad. ‘The first 
order consists of the manifestation of the absolute qualities of 
God, who is primarily impenetrable depth, and whose com- 
panion is Silence. His purpose or Nois is inseperably con- 
nected with Truth, his Word with Life. (cf. John xiv. 6.) Man 
is the Adam Kadmon of the Kabbala, the sum of all the divine 
attributes. The second order shews the combination of unity 
as represented by the masculine elements, with variety as 
denoted by their feminine counterparts. In the third order 
we see God in his relations towards man, which are described 
as male, the female being the gifts which those relations 
convey. 


The Pleroma and 
the Aeons. 


We see therefore in the Pleroma of Valen- 
tinus, God represented under a number of 
attributes, each shewing but a single feature of 
the Divine nature. Sophia or Wisdom, the lowest of these 
Aeons or eternities, tries to comprehend in herself all the 
attributes of the absolute, and hence an element of disturbance 
is introduced. Sophia soars upward in her rash attempt. 
But now a new being appears. “Opos or Sravpds, the limiting 
power, checks Sophia, and she abandons her former design 
(rv mporépay evOupnoav). “Opos separates Wisdom from her 
former design, and casts the latter out of the Pleroma. 
Henceforth she is known as Achamoth. Order is now restored 
and Sophia is placed in her original position. To prevent 
further confusion, Nous produces Christ and the Holy Spirit, 
who teach the Aeons to observe their due places. Having 
been fully instructed by Christ, the Aeons combine to pro- 
duce Jesus, in whom are all the virtues of every Aeon. In 


this way the Valentinians explain St. Paul’s words dvaxepadaid- 
1 


Sophia transcends 
her proper sphere. 


gacda ra mavta ev To XpioTe. 


1. Eph. i. 10, 
PP 


504 APPENDIX A. 


We now leave the Pleroma and come to 
Pe coher the second world in which Achamoth dwelt after 
being separated from Sophia by Horus. It is 
here that the imagination of Valentinus is most fertile. 
Achamoth, the informed desire of Sophia, was without form 
until the higher Christ took compassion on her and gave her a 
form. When he departed from her Achamoth attempted to 
enter the Pleroma, just in the same way as Sophia had tried to 
ascend the Bythus. Being restrained by Horus, she gave way 
to the most violent emotions of grief and passion. Jesus, the 
Christ produced from all the Aeons, came with his attendant 
angels to soothe the woes of Achamoth, and she produced a 
three-fold progeny—the spiritual from her contemplation of the 
angels, the animal (yWvxxdv) from her repentance, and the 
carnal from her passions. ‘The second and third of these 
substances were cast forth, in the same way as the unformed 
wish of Sophia from the Pleroma. From Achamoth’s psychical 
progeny came the Demiurgus, as she had come from Sophia. 
At last we reach the visible universe, in 
which all that happened in the higher world 
was repeated. The Demiurge, like the great 
Archon of Basilides, unconscious of the powers that are above 
him, creates man, but Achamoth gives the newly created being 
a spiritual existence. At first, man had no body, but the 
Demiurge gave him one, by which is signified the coats of skins 
which God gave to Adam and Eve. Adam represents humanity, 
and his sons the threefold division of mankind into carnal 
(Cain), animal (Abel), and spiritual (Seth). The work of the 
redemption of man is the counterpart of the redemption of 
Sophia and Achamoth. Christ descends, taking upon himself 
a seeming but not a real body, and redeems mankind by 
placing all in their proper places. He also instructs the 
Demiurge, whom he will enable to rise to the region of 
Achamoth. The highest class of men will ascend to the 
Pleroma, the second class to the Demiurge in the region of 
Achamoth, whilst all that is carnal will be utterly consumed. 


The World of 
Sense. 


ve 


Se a ee ee ee a 


APPENDIX A. 595 


The most notable features of this elaborate Gnostic 
scheme are :— 

1. Its eclectic character: Valentinus borrows from Plato 
the idea of the higher existences in the celestial world having 
their counterparts in the visible universe; from Indian 
pantheism, the doctrine that material existence is due to the 
degradation of something more noble; from Judaism, the 
declaration that creation is due to the working of God’s 
Wisdom. 

2. The peculiar importance given to the work of Horus 
or Stauros, as a negative and positive agency. As Horus, he 
defines the limits of existence: as Stauros, he separates and 
destroys. 

3. The redemptive work of Christ is regarded as a grand 
historical fact, though Valentinus explains it his own way. 


The chief followers of Valentinus were Secundus, Pto- 
lemaeus, Marcus, Heracleon, Theodotus, and Alexander. 
Bardesanes, the Syrian mystic, was his disciple. 


PP 2 


APPENDIX B. 


ROMAN CHRISTIANITY IN tHE FIRST FOUR 
CENTURIES. 


(By A. C. Jennings, M.A., Rector of King’s Stanley.) 


soettumename) 


THE CATACOMBS AND EARLY MONUMENTS. 


In every impartial survey of the first Ages of Christianity 


the testimony of annalists and ecclesiastical writers must be 
qualified by the evidences of fact contributed by scientific 
archaeology. The natural tendency of the historian is to attach 
peculiar importance to those phases of his subject which most 
affected the beliefs or interests of after generations, The 


archaeologist’s task, on the other hand, is a close investigation - 


of actualites, pursued with a mind deliberately steeled against 
all such ‘prolepsis’. He studies the life of a community, 
unaffected by the issue of controversies and the glamour of 
subsequent achievements and successes, and is content though 
the emphasis be thus often diverted to traits afterwards super- 
seded and forgotten. The light thus thrown by archaeological 
research may appear cold, but it often serves to correct a faulty 
theological perspective. This method is of peculiar service to 
the student of Christian life in the times before the Peace 
of the Church. For its interpretation we now turn not alone 
to ecclesiastical literature, naturally often of partizan character, 
but to a vast array of impartial monumental evidences, speaking 
with sufficient distinctness to correct the traditional conception 
in several not unimportant particulars. The materials specially 


APPENDIX B. 597 


dealt with in this excursus are the inscriptions, sculptures, 
pictures, sarcophagi, etc., brought to light by archaeological re- 
search in Rome. Similar but far less extensive memorials of the 
kind are to be met with at Naples, Cologne, Syracuse, Tréves, 
_and elsewhere, but these need not be further noticed as they 
only corroborate the testimony of the Imperial City. The aim 
in these pages will be first to describe the Roman Catacombs 
and their contents, and next to tabulate certain inferences 
which are now recognized as substantiated by their evidence. 

The student who has not visited Rome may perhaps get 
some idea of the early Christian cemetery (now popularly 
called ‘Catacomb’') by imagining such a maze as that at 
Hampton Court sunk a few feet below ground. Let him 
substitute for its evergreen partitions walls of dark ‘tufo 
granulare’ (the soil that was usually selected as being softest 
to work); and then let him imagine these lined with sepulchral 
recesses (/ocudi) packed as closely as berths in a ship’s cabin. 
Just as such a maze opens out into arbours, the two or three- 
feet wide catacomb passages open out into small cudicula or 
chambers—rectangular, polygonal, or round—often with table 
tombs, projecting or in recess, for the celebration of the 
Eucharist. Let him imagine this maze not only vastly 
extended horizontally but repeated downwards in storeys 
(sometimes as many as five or six) connected by stairs. 
Remembering that there are over twenty Catacombs of various 
sizes at Rome, he will sufficiently realize the enormous extent 
of these labyrinths of cell-lined passages, without dependence 
on the somewhat conflicting estimates of actual mileage. 

It is certain that these subterranean cemeteries take us 
back almost to the earliest days of Christianity at Rome. The 
Catacomb of St. Priscilla was probably the family burial- 
place of Pudens, a contemporary of the Apostles. There is 


I. Kowunrhptov (sleeping place) was the name adopted by the Church 
for the place of interment, and was applied to the entire area too, The © 
subterranean cemetery might be distinguished as a hyfogacum, crypta, or 
sonditorium. 


508 APPENDIX B. 


little doubt that the Catacomb of Nereus and Achilleus was a 
bequest irom the noble lady Domitilla, Vespasian’s niece, who 
was banished as a Christian by Trajan, her two servants being 
at the same time martyred. It is supposed that before her 
conversion it had been used as the Aypfogaeum of the Flavian 
freedmen. The catacomb named later after Agnes (herself 
a martyr in the time of Diocletian) also contains monuments 
assigned to the first century, That of St. Praetextatus 
received some of the martyrs of the emperor M. Aurelius in 
A.D. 162. The Catacombs are indeed continually suggestive 
of the great crises in the early story of our Faith. They are more- 
over indissolubly connected with names familiar to the student 
of Church History. It was to the Catacomb of St. Sebastian 
that the bodies of SS. Peter and Paul were transferred from 
their respective graves on the Via Aurelia and Via Ostiensis, 
on the zoth of June, 258, during the persecution of Valerian. 
The Roman bishop Callistus (whose early career is the subject 
of Hippolytus’ aspersions) had attained distinction as dean or 


warden of the immense catacomb that still bears his name.! 


Here his patron Zephyrinus was buried, and this eatacomb 


received the martyred Sixtus II. and no fewer than thirteen 


of the eighteen succeeding Popes. 


The full activity of these Roman catacombs is covered. 


by the first four centuries. After the conversion of the 
Empire the old rule of extramural disposal of the dead was 
relaxed. Constantine himself had been buried in his 
Byzantine church, and the practice was now introduced of 
burying in /ocuéi made in the walls of churches, or else in 
sarcophagt, sometimes appropriated from the heathen temples. 
Jerome’s well-known description of his Sunday visits to them 
as a schoolboy (ar. 356) suggests that even then the Catacombs 
were a mausoleum of a vanished past. His contemporary 


1. Circa A.D. 202. So Hippolytus Phz/os. 1x. 11. The later version 


was that he ‘‘made”’ this cemetery. (Anastas.,§ 17). Probably he greatly 


enlarged it. 
2. Hieronymus, /# Ezech., cap. xl. 


site 


Ls i 


i i i oo 


APPENDIX B. 599 


Pope Damasus approached them with antiquarian zeal, 
honoured them in many cases with bad hexameters exquisitely 
engraved, opened out new light-shafts, and set in vogue a relic- 
mania which spelt destruction to hundreds of valuable ancient 
monuments and paintings. After 410, when Alaric took 
Rome, there is scarcely a single example of catacomb inter- 
ment, and it may be supposed that, save in the cases of 
persons of distinction, open-air interment now became the 
rule. Many of the structures were in this period filled up 
for protection. A few subsequent Popes (Vigilius, acc. 538, 
John III., ace. 560, Gregory III., acc. 731) made efforts for 
the conservation of the Catacombs. With Paul I. however 
(acc. 757) the practice set in of transferring the bodies of the 
illustrious deceased to new and more magnificent shrines, 
and the Catacombs thus lost all their former attractiveness. 
Indeed with the exception that the ‘Ad Catacumbas,’ or 
locality of the Catacombs of St. Sebastian and St. Callistus, 
was a continuous resort of mediaeval pilgrims, these sacred 
spots were utterly forgotten from the oth till the 16th century ; 
and it was not till the 19th century that scientific excavation 
and the labours of De Rossi and Padre Marchi exhibited their 
real value for the student of Church History. Magr. Wilpert, 
Marrucchi, Lanciani, and others have since largely extended 
our knowledge of the Catacombs and their accessories. The 
mere fact that some twenty thousand inscriptions have been 
catalogued will sufficiently shew the vast range of the material. 
under discussion. 

(1) On one point the archaeologists appear to speak 
unanimously. - The old idea that the primitive Roman church 
was constrained to worship in the secrecy of the Catacombs 
is now exploded. General congregational worship in three-feet 
wide passages and ten or twenty-feet square ce//ae could never 
have been practicable for an ever-increasing community such 
as that of the Christians. Nor is there any reason to doubt, 
despite the continuous grumbling at the spread of the new 
religion, and the fact that Christianity was not a ‘religio licita’ 


600 APPENDIX B. 


until A.D. 259, that the Christians had the same facilities for 
worship within the Roman walls as had the Jews. Buildings 
made over for this purpose at Rome are mentioned by Pope 
Pius I.,! before aA.p. 150; and for Clemens Alexandrinus and 
Tertullian ecclesia had evidently the same topical significance 
as our word ‘church’? Neither are we to suppose that 
these excavations were secret, illicit, or of novel character. 
The wealthier Roman families are known to have con- 
structed extensive vaults, with co/umbaria for cinerary urns, or 
conattoria for the corpses of the deceased. The funerary asso- 
ciations of the working classes were moreover a common feature 
in Roman social life, and many of these were endowed with 
a common place of burial. The chief peculiarities in the 
Christian case, in fact, were the dedication of such vaults to the 
wants of a continually increasing 7e/#gious community, and the 
utter exclusion therefrom of the method of incineration. In 
this regard it is significant that hard by the Ad Catacumbas 
there still stands the Jewish Catacomb on the Via Appia. For 
in both respects the Roman Christians were anticipated, it 
would seem, by the Roman Jews. From the religion in which 
she had been cradled the Church had imbibed her preference 
of burial to cremation, which from the time of Sylla was the 
common (though not the only) Roman method of disposing 
of the dead. From it too had been appropriated the idea of a 
sacred community united in life and death by indissoluble ties. 
Christianity found at Rome a large Jewish population which 
was probably already possessed of catacombs, and it naturally 
adopted the same sepulchral arrangements. In the matter of 
obsequies at Rome, the only legal limitation was that the dead 
had to be disposed of at a certain distance beyond the city 
walls. ‘This requisite was probably sometimes satisfied by 
wealthy Christians, such as the imperial lady, Flavia Domitilla, 

1. Pii ad Yustum, Epp. 1, 2. é 

2. Clem. Alex., Strom. 7. ; cf. Tertul., De Jdol., cap. 7 and Adz. 
Valent., cap. 3. Alexander Severus’ award of a disputed plot of ground 


to the Christians, who contested it with the ‘ popinarii’ (c#v. A.D. 230), is 
another proof that the Christians could hold property as a community. 


P ga 
Ae 
_ a. : ’ 
Deeg : 
ee eee =i omg ‘ ‘ 
i 2 Ne a a 


APPENDIX B, 601 


making over to the community their v///ae or gardens outside 
the city. In properties so given or purchased then, the Christians 
constructed catacombs in Jewish fashion, and here they 
habitually and peacefully disposed of the remains of their 
brethren. The peculiar honours of the martyr’s na/ale, and 
the practice of celebrating death-anniversaries, in the manner 
which we describe below, did however undoubtedly induce 
extraordinary gatherings of Christians in their subterranean 
burial places. Naturally, therefore, persecutors such as 
Valerian are found taking tyrannical measures to prohibit 
the visiting of Christian “cemeteries”, as well as of the 
general assembling of Christians “in any place soever ”.! 
This explanation of the use of the Catacombs of course 
does not shut out their occasional employment for refuge, or 
for the ordinary worship, in times of trouble. But such crises 
were really exceptional. The liberal spirit of Pagan Rome 
seldom interfered with the worship of the Christians within 
the city walls: There is no reason to doubt that in the second 
century—perhaps before the death of Pope Euarestus—the 
Roman Christians had developed a definite parochial organiza- 
tion.2 It may be inferred, therefore, that each catacomb 
corresponded to a ‘titulus’ or parish, with its sacred edifice 
within the city. The general exemption of funerary sodaitta 
from restrictions on close colleges may have been utilized by 
the Christian as it seems to have been by other associations,® 
and this would have protected the growth of the new religion, 
At any rate the old notion of the constant peril of the mere pro- 
fession of Christianity must be modified by what is now known 


1. See the account of Cyprian’s interview with the proconsul at 
Carthage, in Neander, Ch. Ast., vol. 1., p. 190. 

2. This appears to have been extended by Pope Marcellus, A.D. 
308—10, who, according to the Lzber Pontificalis, presided over twenty- 
five tituli. In the appointment of the seven Deacons of Rome we may 
perhaps see an adaptation of the primitive number seven to the civil 
divisions of the city, and suppose that each deacon had in charge two of 


its fourteen ‘ regiones’. 
3, See Dill, Roman Society from Nero to M. Aurelius, bk. ey 
UL 


ch 


602 APPENDIX B. 


of the numbers of the community and its formal organization. © 
The connexion of the Christian community with the Catacombs 
could never have been a secret. The range of each was really 
indicated plainly above ground by boundary marks delimiting 
its superficial area. Nor could excavations so extensive have 
gone on continuously below without official cognizance, or in 
defiance of recognizable prohibitions. 

(2) The Catacombs were the resort of a community 
which appropriated with startling boldness, not only the artistic 
emblems, but much of the funereal symbolism and vocabulary 
of the Pagan Rome in which it dwelt. The frescoes of the 
sacred czdicula reproduce much of the domestic decoration 
which the traveller sees at Pompeii—the four seasons, the 
winged genii, the arabesques set off with butterflies and birds. 
When we detect in the Catacomb of Domitilla the emblematic 
Vine of the new Faith, we find it surrounded by joyous 
amorint, who pluck off or tread out the grapes. Bacchus 
himself is sometimes present. The river-god Jordan, gazing 
at some scriptural scene, is a conception which occurs, not 
only here, but as late as the fifth century in the mosaics of 
Ravenna. The butterfly Psyche, the heathen emblem of the 
soul, is discernible. Oceanus is the central medallion of a — 
ceiling, or a Mercury holding the horses of an Elijah about to. 
be translated in his chariot. The symbolical Orpheus charming 
the beasts with his lyre is a favourite representation in this 
school of art. Where this gives place to the more popular 
emblem of the future—the Good Shepherd—the figure is at 
first of the Apollo type. In at least one instance it is 
attended by the three Graces. 

Many of the inscriptions on the /ocu# are of like traditional 
character. After making all possible allowance for re-using of 
Pagan tomb-stones, and interments of heathen relations in the 
Christians’ burial place, it is certain that the vocabulary of 
the heathen religion was appropriated without scruple in the 
first age of the Roman church. On the same stone as the 
Christian emblems occurs not infrequently the formula 


enn a hee 


APPENDIX B. 603 


D.M.,* or ‘Dis Manibus’ in full. In Fabretti’s Christian list 
appears the epigraph ‘Debita sacratis manibus officia’, and 
even ‘Sanctique manes nobis petentibus adsint’. There 
are allusions to ‘Lachesis’ and ‘Taenariae fauces’; and 
‘Tartarea custodia’ is actually found on the tombstone of 
one who had been a Christian presbyter. ‘Domus aeterna’ is 
sometimes retained, and there is even the epigraph Oappet 
ovdeis adavros. 

Again, the accessories of a heathen’s interment were often 
some cherished possessions, originally for his enjoyment in 
Hades. The early Christians seem to have seen no incon- 
sistency in perpetuating this practice in a sentimental spirit. 
Frequently the children of the faithful were buried with their 
dolls ; and the /ocwi of ladies had such accessories as jewellery, 
tooth-picks, mirrors, toilet implements—even the false hair 
reprobated by Tertullian and Clement. In the tombs of the 
men have been found dice, locks and keys, and implements of 
handicraft—mistaken by the early explorers for instruments 
of martyrdom. ‘The later period however adopted the less 
invidious fashion of merely indicating the profession by incised 
symbols on the outer slab that closed the /ocwlus, as eg. a 
hammer and chisels for a deceased sculptor, an apparatus of 
surgical instruments for a doctor. 

This portion of the Catacomb evidences necessarily 
qualifies the inferences we might have drawn from the Patristic 
literature, as to the severance of the early Christians from all 
heathen associations, their Puritanism, their general aversion 
to painting and art. For Petavius as later for our own 
Bingham,? as Dean Stanley remarks, Tertullian’s casual men- 
tion of the ‘Good Shepherd’ on a communion cup was 
admittedly a quite unique exceptional attestation. We now 
know that the early Christians delighted to adorn their Jocud 


1. Later this gives place to B.M. or ‘ Bonae Memoriae’. 

2. ‘*The only instance Petavius pretends to find in all the three first 
ages,’ says Bingham, (Zec/es. Antzg. vit. 8), anent Tertullian’s well-known 
allusion in de Pudic., cap. 10. 


604 APPENDIX B. 


and sepulchral lamps with this genial emblem. But more than 
this, we must conceive of them—at Rome at least—as so free 
from Puritanism as to incorporate readily all that was capable 
of adaptation in contemporary artistic usage ; so large in their 
hope as to include the time-honoured phraseology which linked 
them with their ancestors—even at the cost of theological 
distinctiveness. The constancy of the many Roman martyrs, 
when summoned to worship the heathen gods, is sufficient 
proof that there is here no actual syncretism ; no real incor- 
poration of a mythology already sufficiently in discredit with 
many of its professed votaries. Inferences of such a kind in 
the very mausoleums of the Christian martyrs would be scarcely 
less absurd than in the case of our own 18th century monu- 
ments. But while it is mere pseudo-classic taste that gives our 
Westminster Abbey the occasional epitaph ‘aeterna domus’, 
or the statues of heathen deities, at Rome the immediate 
perpetuation of proud traditions and beloved associations 
was fostered by patriotism and an almost unconscious atavism. 
Nevertheless, such bold indifference to theological precision— 
such affectionate adhesion to ancestral usagé—are, in view 
of the times and their perils, no less surprising than pathetic. 
(3) We have next to consider more closely the emblems 
and inscriptions which assure us that we are in Christian burial 
places. Side by side with all this idiom of tradition, we find 
the unmistakable Christian epitaph. It is presented in all 
variety of language and lettering. It appears in Greek, Latin, 
and Graeco-Latin. Its characters may be uncial, minuscule, 
rustic, or ligated. They may have been incised, scratched, 
written, or painted. The diction too is pretty frequently 
obscured by a barbarous indifference to concords, syntax, con- 
jugations, prosody, and aspiration!, and we are reminded of 
the humble social standing of the majority of the community. 
More easy to be deciphered are the outcomes of ecclesiastical 
art, which is already differentiating itself from the pagan 


1. £.g. there are found zc, oc, hossa, heterna. Cf. Catullus, Carm., 
LXXXIII., © et insidias Arrius hinsidias,” : 


APPENDIX B. 605 


tradition and speaks to us in a crude and delimited vocabulary 
of fresco and relief. The vast collection of sarcophagi, slabs, 
lamps, glasses, etc., now in the various Christian museums, 
must be replaced by imagination in the Catacombs, ere we 
have all the testimony necessary for an exact appreciation 
of these inscriptions and embellishments in their theological 
relations. But no extension of our researches will confute 
the first impression—that here we have most sanguine and 
cheerful views of death and the future ; a determined exclusion 
of the sombre side of religion; a Hope that excludes even the 
memories of Calvary in its recognition of Christ as the guide 
and source of an unbroken life. Thus—in marked contrast 
with the mediaeval practice—there is absolute reticence as 
to the Saviour’s sufferings. We find no crucifix, scarcely 
any portrayal of the familiar penal cross. In the sixth-century 
mosaics of Ravenna the visitor may note a series of Holy- 
Week tableaux, passing abruptly from the scene of Pilate 
washing his hands to that of the Resurrection, in bold exclusion 
of the great intervening tragedy. This rule is equally apparent 
in the early Catacomb art. Here and there Rome’s connexion 
with Peter suggests his ‘denial’; and a curious ecclesiastical 
interpretation! of the washing of Pilate’s hands seems to 
make this incident a somewhat favourite subject. But the 
climax—the sacrifice on Calvary—is only adumbrated in 
symbolical scenes from the Old Testament, or in the pre- 
dilection for the emblem of the Lamb. The cross (‘ commissa’ 
or fau shape) may however be occasionally detected forming 
the handle of the sepulchral lamp, or blended with the chrisma 
or sacred Greek monogram. This last (sometimes along with 
A and Q) is a frequent symbol. It finally bears just the same 
appearance as on the Constantinian coins. 

While there is this striking contrast to Clement’s well- 
confirmed account of the use of the Cross as a Christian sign, 
the emblems which he notices as allowable for Christian 


1. According to Tertullian it suggested a practice of washing the 
hands before prayer. De Dominica, cap. 13 


606 APPENDIX B. 


gems’ are very common—the dove (or pair of doves), the 
fish, the anchor, the ship, and the fisherman. Another 
common symbol is Noah saved in the Ark—always a solitary 
figure in a small square box with a dove flying to him. Most 
frequent of all perhaps is the ovamze or praying figure, noticed 
below. The symbolism is extended, especially in the later 
period, on the lamps, vast quantities of which may be examined 
in the museums. Such lamps—of metal or clay, and adorned 
with sacred emblems—were in habitual use in the Jewish 
Catacomb. The Jew had commonly ornamented his sepulchral 
lamp with the seven-branched candlestick, or the peacock.? 
We find both these occasionally re-appearing as Christian 
emblems. We notice too, both on the /ocu/z and their lamps, 
the palm branch, and more rarely the phoenix. Both these 
emblems are familiar on the Imperial coinage and brick- 
stamps, and here once again we see the Church consecrating 


the ordinary associations of secular life. ‘The palm branch 


(not yet reserved as an emblem of martyrdom) spoke to the 
Christians of a spiritual victory. We remember that the phoenix, 
which had attested the Emperor’s pretence to undying fame, 


is made by Rome’s early bishop, Clemens, an emblem of 


the glorious Resurrection.® 

It remains to notice that of Scriptural emblems the 
most familiar, in every part of the Catacombs, is undoubtedly 
the Good Shepherd, bearing the lost sheep or kid, and—in 
the case of the larger and later pieces—surrounded by His 


flock. The Shepherd as a single figure appears repeatedly 
on the loculi-slabs and the lamps. It survives as the favourite 


Christian emblern to the fifth century, and then abruptly 


passes away, giving place to the mystic Lamb of the Apocalypse, 


1. Cf. Clem. Alex., Paedogog, iii. 11. 


2. The peacock is also found decorating Pagan columbaria of the 


second century. Its perpetuation—if not its original adoption as a 
sepulchral accessory—was connected with the notion that the peacock’s 
flesh was incorruptible. Like the phoenix, it was to the Christian an 
emblem of immortality, cf. Aug., De Civ. Dez, lib. XXI. cap. iv. 

3. Clemens Romanus, Z£f. ad Cor., cap. 25. 


t 


APPENDIX B. 607 


or to more realistic emblems of the Saviour’s sufferings. It 
appears—perhaps for the last time—in the mosaic of the 
Ravenna Mausoleum, built by Galla Placidia, a7. a.D. 440. 
By this time the cross and nimbus have been added, and the 
figure is seated and has gained in dignity, but the “lost” and 
rescued sheep is no longer portrayed. The only accessories 
are the tame and attentive flock. The picture is suggestive 
of a time when the greatest missionary triumph of the Church 
had been won, and the era of ecclesiastical tutelage had begun 
to dawn. 

Though He is represented so frequently in the Scriptural 
pieces, of attempted portraits of our Lord there are but two 
discoverable in the early work. One, a purely unconventional 
fresco medallion in the Catacomb of Dumitilla, is deeply 
interesting, as undoubtedly telling us how Christians ideally 
depicted our Saviour’s lineaments some seventy years after 
His Ascension. We notice too that it presents a face singularly 
like the types of Leonardo da Vinci and Renaissance art. 
The other, in the later Catacomb of Pontianus, is described 
as of similar type but less natural in artistic treatment. 

(4) It has been noticed how religious sentiment excluded 
from the Catacomb frescoes and reliefs the story of the 
Saviour’s Passion, and all scenes suggestive of sadness or fear. 
It must be added that the range of Scriptural subjects seems 
to be limited, not only by such considerations, but by some 
sort of generally accepted canon of ecclesiastical art,? ruling 
that the same scenes shall recur repeatedly, and in precisely 
the same forms. With the exception of the Visit of the 
Magi, the New Testament ‘cycle ’, 1f it may be so called, 
seldom presents anything before or after the public Ministry 
of Jesus. Again and again we have, in stereotyped forms, 
the paralytic taking up his couch, the blind man _ healed 
with the clay, the Samaritan woman at the well, the feeding 


1. The range of treatment is similarly dominated and limited in 
the monuments of Sicily and Arles, 


608 APPENDIX B. 


of the multitudes, the raising of Lazarus; less often perhaps — 


the turning water into wine, Christ teaching His disciples, 
and Zacchaeus in his sycamore tree. The selection seems 
to illustrate the dominant ideal of Jesus, as above all the 
ever-present Pastor, Healer, and Teacher of the soul. — 

The Old Testament selection is in like manner limited 
to a cycle of favourite scenes. Some are evidently selected as 
allegorical of Christian doctrine. Such are—Moses striking 
the rock, the Manna, the sacrifice of Isaac, Jonah disgorged 
from the whale’s belly, the deliverance of Israel at the Red 
Sea, and Noah “saved by water”. The other favourite scenes 
in the Old Testament cycle would suggest lessons, of conduct, 
and teach the believers faith, patience and constancy. Such 
are—Jonah under the gourd, David with his sling, the three 
children in the fire, Daniel in the lions’ den, and the stories 
of Tobit and Susanna. 

Before leaving these pictures and reliefs, a few words 
must be said about the oranti which so often appear as 
accessories. ‘The oran¢e is a man, woman, or child, standing 
in the Eastern attitude of prayer, sc/. with both the lower 


arms extended laterally and with open palms. It appears 


clear that this figure was intended originally as a representation 
(not necessarily a portraiture) of the person interred. Indeed, 
in the Catacomb of Callistus, there are four male orant 
with their names attached. But the female ovan# occur in 
such enormous preponderance that it may perhaps be inferred 
than an ideal of the Church, or a symbol of the soul itself, 
usually took the place of a personal memorial. The attitude 
has no connexion in the early monuments with that of the 
Crucified Saviour. Nor is there ground for identifying the 
figure in any case with the Blessed Virgin Mary. In this 
connexion it may be remarked that closer observation appears 
to exclude the early references to the Blessed Virgin assumed 
by De Rossi and others. Apart from the ‘ Visit of the Magi’ 
she is scarcely discoverable in the early Christian art. The 
most notable exception is the well-known fresco in the 


APPENDIX B, 609 


Catacomb of St. Priscilla. This is a picture of the Mother 
and Child, attended by a youthful figure who points to a 
star, and who, if not Joseph, may be Isaiah or some other 
Old Testament Prophet. This fresco probably dates from 
the middle of the second century. In the same catacomb 
is an equally early, but much disputed ‘Annunciation’. 
Both frescoes are natural in character; and the latter is 
especially free from the stiffness and conventionality character- 
istic of the Scripture ‘cycle’. It must be added, however, 
that the Virgin Mary appears repeatedly—but usually between 
St. Peter and St. Paul—on the sepulchral glasses of the third 
and fourth centuries which we describe below. 

We find it more strange to realize how seldom in the 
first age any direct allusion to the rite of the Eucharist 
appears to be substantiated. Perhaps the earliest certain 
reference to this subject is the emblem in the third-century 
Catacomb of St. Cornelius—a cantstrum' or basket, which 
contains loaves and a bottle of wine, and which itself rests 
on the symbolical Fish. The difficulty here is to distinguish 
between the Eucharist and the Agape, or charitable supper, 
which is certainly often portrayed. Thus the fresco in the 
Catacomb of Callistus, with seven persons seated round a 
table laden with fish, and a man blessing the bread,? is 
probably an adaptation of the Resurrection Miracle described 
in John xxi. to the Agape rather than to the Eucharist. 
On the other hand it is obvious that the Eucharist is repre- 
sented in the much later mosaic at Ravenna (cir. A.D. 560), 
where the Lord and eleven Apostles recline round a semi- 
circular table bearing only small loaves and two large fishes. 


1. For the ecclesiastical use of such baskets cf Jerome, Zp. ad 
Rusticum, cap. xx. ‘‘ Nihil illo ditius qui corpus domini canistro vimineo, 
sanguinem portat in vitro.” 

2. It need scarcely be remarked that throughout this period there is 
no distinctive clerical dress to help our interpretation. Even in a piece 
(second or third century) accepted by Bosio as representing an Ordination, 
the seated bishop and two standing presbyters all wear the customary 
toga and tunica, while the ordinand has the tunica only. 


QQ 


610 APPENDIX B.. 


A decision therefore cannot be reached either by the mere 
absence of the element of wine, or by the presence of the fish.! 
The Agape, where certainly distinguishable, commonly 


appears as a picture of men and women seated at a meal, | 


the provision for which is bread, fish and wine. Its religious 
character is usually not indicated, unless it be by the pre- 
dilection for seven (¢ John xxi. 2) as the number of the 
guests. Besides the instance noted above, seven persons 
take part in the meal represented in the third-century fresco 
of the Catacomb of Priscilla (Cappella Greca). In the fresco 
in the Catacomb of Marcellinus, however, there are only three 
guests. ‘(wo women are seated at the corners of the table, 
and there is a boy in attendance carrying amphorae. The 
guests say to the women “ Irene da calda”, “Agape misce mi”. 

(5) ‘The inscriptions in the Catacombs, in their bearing 
on such practices as prayers for the dead and prayers to 
saints, have been very differently interpreted by archaeologists 
according to their theological bias. Undoubtedly, however, 
the most apposite illustration of the original purpose of the 
Catacombs’ cudicuda is supplied by a well-known passage 
in the ‘Martyrdom of Polycarp’.? In this circular letter the 


Church of Smyrna relates how her foes in their ignorance — 


demanded the complete burning of the martyr’s body, lest 
the Christians should worship him instead of Christ (apévres rov 
éoravpopevov). “* For it is He whom we worship,” protests this 
letter, “‘ but the martyrs we duly love, as disciples and imitators 
of the Lord.” ‘And so” it continues (after stating how 


the centurion gave way and Polycarp’s body was burnt) © 


‘“‘we afterwards took up his bones, which are more honourable 
than precious stones and more valuable than gold, and 
deposited them where it was fit. And here, if it be in our 
power, we will assemble in gladness and joy; and the Lord 


1. It must be remembered that the Fish was certainly deemed 
doubly emblematic (cf Tertullian, De Baft. cap. 1) from a very early period. 
Hence the frequency of the inscription IXOUS, 

z. Mart. S. Polycarpi, cc. xvii., xviii. 


oe 


APPENDIX B. 611 


shall permit us to celebrate the birth-day of his martyrdom, 
both as a commemoration of the departed warrior, and as an 
exercise and preparation of those whom the battle still awaits.” 
Just such a meeting place was the cudiculum. Here the 
Christians met on the zafa/e or death-day of the martyr, and 
expressed their belief in the Communion of Saints by receiving 
the Eucharist from a table beneath which lay his remains, and 
by the less solemn fellowship of the Agape. There was 
nothing that we should deem superstitious in the first con- 
ception. As certainly as our sovereigns lie in Westminster 
Abbey, their still inscribed tombs or cudicula once held 
the remains of the martyred bishops Zephyrinus, Cornelius, 
Anteros—-the martyred deacons Agapetus and Felicissimus— 
the martyred laymen Nereus and Achilleus. But for the 
mistaken piety or necessary caution of the succeeding age, 
they might all be there still. No surroundings better calcu- 
lated to inspire devotion can be imagined. There was wisdom 
in Valerian’s withdrawing from the Church that protection 
which the burial laws accorded to rites connected with places 
of sepulture. Only a few weeks before (June 29, A.D. 258) 
the supposed remains of Peter and Paul had been triumph- 
antly transferred to the Catacomb of St. Sebastian. The 
execution of two malefactors two centuries earlier had itself 
become a stimulus to Christian constancy. 

It is however easy to conceive how such devotion always 
ran the risk of unduly exalting human merit, and of fostering 
the idea that the saints, or the deceased friends, could be 
approached in prayer, as mediators between earth and Heaven. 
And a curious discovery enables us to contrast the popular 
theology at the time when Cyprian suffered, with the repudia- 
tion of worship of martyrs so emphatically expressed a century 
earlier, on the occasion of Polycarp’s death in a.D. 156. When 
Valerian’s victims at Rome were interred in the Catacomb of 
Praetextatus (A.D. 258), the still wet plaster about their graves 
was scratched by some unknown hand with the words “ Mi 
refrigeri Januarius, Agatopos, Felicissimus, martyres.” Nor 

Q2Q2 


612 APPENDIX B. 


can it be denied that this illiterate graffifo has many counter- 
parts in the third century, and perhaps earlier, in more formal 
epigraphs. ‘Pete pro nobis’, ‘roga pro nobis’, ‘pro 
parentibus’, ‘pro conjuge’, etc., are among the inscriptions, 
and become more frequent as the fourth century is reached. 
But curiously enough the names of any sainted martyrs are 
rarely found in these epigraphs. Such petitions as ‘martyres 
sancti in mente havite Maria’ are in fact exceptional. It is 
usually the case of surviving relatives imploring the mediation, 
not of noted saints, but of the friend deceased. 

In regard to the converse practice ‘prayer for the dead’? 
it must be remembered that the future was throughout this 
period unclouded by the gloomy speculations of theologians. 
The state beyond is plainly viewed in the Catacombs with 
serene cheerfulness, as a continuation and development of the 
present spiritual life. It is consistent that in the first six 
centuries but very few examples are found of the address to 
the reader for his prayers. It is no real qualification of this 


position, if we find the early Christians appropriating as a fit — 


epigraph the familiar Jewish ejaculation ‘on him be peace’, 
here appearing in such forms as ‘pax tecum’, ‘quiescas’, 
‘vivas in deo’, (yaais év 6eg, ‘in bono refrigeres’, etc. At 
least as frequent are the expressions of a sure and certain hope. 
The pious acclamation is itself indeed probably much less 
common in the epitaphs than on the glass Agape cups, which 
have been found sealed up in the /ocud. But there is a 
sufficiency of such inscriptions as ‘in pace’, ‘requiescit in 
pace’, ‘dormivit in pace Jesu quem dilexit’, ‘refrigera in. 
‘spiritu sancto,’ Oappe?, Oapo1, and (curiously contrasting with 
the ‘quiescas’ above) ypyyépee ‘wake up’. Sometimes, as 
we have seen, there is an appropriation of the traditional 
vocabulary of Paganism. Sometimes there is merely a pathetic 
ejaculation of human affection: ‘innocent little lamb’, ‘my 
innocent dove’, ‘dulcis anima’, ‘anima innox’, or the like. 
In most cases seemingly there is no expression of the survivor’s 
sentiments at all. 


APPENDIX B. 613 


(6) It will have been noticed that the Catacombs testify 
to a much greater prominence of the Agape than has usually 
been recognized. Formerly the idea of this institution was 
too readily taken from Fathers who looked coldly on it, or, like 
Tertullian, aspersed it in the spirit of intolerant Puritanism. 
The Catacombs tell us in their pictures, and in the accessories 
of their /ocw/z, what an important part the Agape really played 
in the life of the Christian populace. Doubtless the institution 
demanded modifications, as the Church grew and gained 
proselytes in all ranks of life. It is unlikely that it was main- 
tained in its original simplicity in the intra-mural churches, and 
it is inconceivable that large congregations came for this 
purpose to the contracted cudicula of the Catacombs. Probably, 
as appears to have been the habit later of Monica! at Carthage, 
the wealthier Roman Christians substituted the contribution 
of provisions for attendance at the congregational Agape. 
The prevalence, however, of this bond of fellowship was 
seemingly sufficiently notorious to excite those allegations 
of ‘Thyestean banquets’ and shameless impurities, that 
were the stock-in-trade of the assailants of the Faith. St. 
Paul’s rebuke of the sacrilegious Corinthians (1 Cor. xi.) 
shews us moreover how easily the Agape might lend itself to 
actual abuse. We may well conceive that in many cases the 
good cheer of the mafait#za may have been more attractive 
than the pious example of the sainted martyr. As in the case 
of our own Dedication festivals and Harvest homes, the 
religious associations might easily be lost in mere material 
enjoyment. For such reasons the institution was destined 
to obliteration ; and we forget till we study the Catacombs how 
long it remained an essential feature in popular Christianity. 

The Catacombs attest too the prolonged connexion of 
the Agape, not only with the commemoration of saints and 
martyrs, but with the ordinary obsequies of the departed 
Christian. The proof of this is the immense quantity of 


x. Augustine, Confess. VI. 2 


614 APPENDIX B. 


glasses, cups, saucers, and other vessels which were once in 
and about the /ocud’ of the Catacombs and are now in the 
preservation of the museums.! These are inscribed in many 
cases with the pious ejaculations,—‘ vivas’, (yoais, ‘in pace’, 
etc., which we noticed above in connexion with the subject of 
epitaphs. There seems to be little doubt that it was customary 
to use these vessels at the Christian obsequies, and that they 
were deposited in the /oculus ere it was closed up.? 

Here again we may see an evidence of the adaptation of 
early Roman Christianity to social environments and hereditary 
usage. For the Pagan not infrequently provided by testament 
for cellae memortae, where his freedmen should thereafter © 
assemble for a banquet commemorating his death. The 
Pagan sepulture moreover had the accessories of food-vessels 
and food—in connexion originally with primitive ideas of the 
world beyond. Further, the Pagan religion, besides prescribing 
the public Feralia when food was brought to sepulchres, 
directed a similar observation in families of the birth-day of 
a departed member. We infer that these usages were retained 
with little alteration by the Roman church. The Christians 
for the birth-day substituted the death-day, as the anniversary 
of an entry into heavenly life, and the Agape in its connexion 
with the ataztia took the place of the Pagan birth-day 
offerings of oil and wine and milk at sepulchres. Similarly, 
the old Roman use was perpetuated by an interment in 
the Joculus of the vessel actually used at the funeral meal. 

A study of the inscriptions which appear on these 
vessels brings home to us the closeness of this connexion with 
heathen practice. It must be understood that the glass beaker, 
used on such occasions, had generally a picture and inscription 
wrought in gold leaf, on and within the base. This ornamenta- 
tion was protected by a glass plate welded into the sides of 


1. See Prof. Babington’s article in Dict. Chr. Antig., ‘Glass’. 

2. Sometimes they contain craces of a red liquid. This was hastily 
wssumed by the early explorers to be evidence of a martyrdom, 

3. Cf. Dill, of. cet., pp. 275, 277. 


APPENDIX B. 615 


the beaker. The beaker was put into the Joculus, its base 
sinking often into the wet plaster. The more fragile bow] 
-was liable to succumb to the action of time or careless 
handling. Usually therefore the sole memorial now surviving is 
the pictured or inscribed base, disintegrated from the cup, and 
presenting merely the appearance of a medallion of some two 
to five inches diameter. Whatever the age of these pictured 
glass vessels—the specialists deny most of them an earlier 
age than the fourth century—they serve to illustrate Tertullian’s 
tirade against Christian art, “ procedant ipsae picturae calicum 
vestrorum, si vel in illis perlucebit interpretatio.”* The 
picture is commonly an Apostle or Saint. It is interesting to 
find that, again and again, the Apostles Peter and Paul appear 
side by side—doubtless as the traditional founders of the 
Roman church. Sometimes the Virgin appears between 
the two Apostles, very rarely she is represented alone. 
Laurence, Hippolytus, Callistus, Cyprian, Marcellinus (one 
of Diocletian’s martyrs), are also found portrayed. The 
tendency to saint-worship now finds expression occasionally 
in such inscriptions as ‘ Vivas in Cristo et Laurentio’, ‘ Vivas 
in nomine Laurete’, ‘Petrus proteg’, etc. But more com- 
mon by far are inscriptions, singularly combining, in the very 
spirit of early Catacomb art, the convivial associations of the 
ancient funerary rites with the pious ejaculation of the 
‘Christian at the tomb. Often both are associated with a 
picture from the usual Scripture cycle. 

A few instances® of such combinations will suffice. (1) 
The Good Shepherd: round it in Greek ‘Drink, Rufus; 
may you live with all yours; live.’ (2) A bust with zEsEs 
(‘may you live’) in the central circle: round this four scenes 
from the Scripture cycle. (3) Two busts (man and wife?) 


1. A few examples of these relics may be seen encased in the British 
Museum’s * Early Christian Collection ’, 2nd North Gallery, Room I. (v). 

2. De Pudic., cap. 7. The ‘calyx’ of Tertullian of course need not 
be a Eucharistic chalice. 

3. These are fully described and pictured in Prof. Babington’s 
excellent article referred to above. 


616 APPENDIX B. 


with PIE ZESES (‘drink, may you live’) in the central circle; 
round this five of the Scripture scenes. (4) Christ turning 
water into wine; round this the inscription ‘ Dignitas amicorum : 
vivas in pace Dei: Zeses.’ ‘This ‘dignitas amicorum’ ( = the 
classical ‘digni amici’, ‘here’s to our worthy friends’) is 
particularly suggestive of the ordinary convivial usages. Yet 
more striking, if it could be proved that it came from the 
Christian catacombs, would be the glass cup in the miscel- 
laneous Vatican collection inscribed ‘In nomine Aerculis 
Acherontini felices bibatis [or vivatis].’ If Christian, this and 
similar inscriptions must be interpreted in the same way as the 
pagan pictures and epitaphs on the walls of the cudzcula, above 
noticed. The ‘heredity of religion’ which Dr. Dill recognizes 
as a potent influence in the Pagan epigraphy must be borne in 
mind, even in the Christian case. His caveat that ‘an epitaph 
should not be construed as a confession of faith”! seems 
especially essential in our study of the Catacombs. It is in- 
telligible that they shew us the Italian mind clinging, as it has 
ever clung, to the ancestral traditions, and investing or em- 
bellishing even the most solemn of all themes with the con- 
ventionalities and fictitious characters of the national mythology. 
There was doubtless as little disloyalty to the Faith in such 
adaptation, as when the post-Nicene Roman bishops themselves 
appropriated the heathen title ‘ Pontifex Maximus’ ; or as when 
the nimbus of the sacred heathen statue became the indication 
of the Christian saint; or as when, in the 14th century, un- 
consciously assuming the very attitude of these early believers, 
the great Florentine poet was escorted by Virgil to Charon’s 
ferry, and across Acheron, to the walls of Dis. 


BL Dill, of. cét., pp. 496 seg. 


INDEX. 


Aaron, 12, 223 

_ Abba Salama, 557 

Abbott, Dr. E., 241n., 363n. 

Abel, 144, 594 

Abdaas of Ctesiphon, 550 

Abgar Ukkama of Edessa, 41, 543 

Abgar VIII., 41 

Abgar, IX., 543 

Aboth, 10 

Abraham, 25, 74, 98, 127, 140, 143, 
305; honoured by Alexander 
Severus, 74 

Abraxas, 591 

Abyssinian Church, see ETHIOPIAN 
CHURCH 

Acacius of Antioch in Phrygia, 79 

Acacius of Caesarea, 332, 345, 3475 
349, 350 ; 

Acacius of Constantinople, 538n. 

accedia, 586 

Achamoth, 593, 594 

Achillas, deacon, 315 

Achilleus, martyr, 248n., 598, 611 

acolytes, 218, 572 

Actium, battle of, 18 

Acts of Apostles, 11n., 12, 13, 29, 36, 
39, 48n., 51n., 94n., 96n., 118, 
131, 212, 228n., 556 

Acts of Martyrdom, 58, 66, 79n., 
549n., 551; Scillitan Martyrs, 
66n.; Perpetua and Felicitas, 
72n., 225n., 263 

Acts of Paul and Thecla, 49 

Acts of Pilate, 86n., 92 

Adam, 139, 143, 150, 175, 176, 504, 


594 
Adam, the Second, 460 
Adam Kadmon, 124, 125, 567, 589, 


593 
Ad Catacumbas, 599, 600 
Addai, 543; Doctrine of, 41n., 543 
Adelfius, British bishop, 293 
Adeodatus, 495 
Adrianople, battles of, 92, 296, 392, 


393» 427 


Advent, Second, 103 

Adyginus, bishop of Cordova, 410 

Aedesius, philosopher, 355 

Aelia Capitolina, 60, 319, 323-4 

Aelian, proconsul of Africa, 293 

Aemilian, martyr, 372 

Aeons, Gnostic, 127, 593, 594 

Aeon Christ, 142 

Aesculapius, 183n., 197 

Aétius, heretic, 345, 349, 355, 360 

Aétius, Roman general, 516,530,534 

Aétius, archdeacon of Constantin- 
ople, 536, 572 

Africa, 42, 479, 515—17, 558 

—— Church of, 42, 64, 66, 72, 
222, 263—9, 288—95, 486, 
496—5ol, 509» 526, 560-1, 564 

Agape, 55, 65, 232-3; in Cata- 
combs, 609, 610, 611, 613-143 
cups, 612, 614-15 

Agape, a Priscillianist, 409 

Agapetus, deacon, martyr, 611 

Agathangelos, 553n., 556n. 

Agatho, pope, 571 

Agelius, Novatian bishop, 400 

Agilo, 361 

Agnes (St.), Catacomb of, 598; 
church at Rome, 520 

Agonistae, 294 

Agricola, 561 

Agrippa, 19, 20 

Agrippa, see HEROD 

Ahriman, 123, 133 

Aidoneus, 183 

Akiba (Rabbi), 124 

Alaric, Gothic chieftain, 420, 439, 
511-12, 518, 5234, 558, 560, 


5995-5. 
Alauda Legio, 70 
Albigenses, 152 
Albinus, general, 530 
Alexander Balas, 9 
Alexander Jannaeus, 16n. 
Alexander, bp. of Jerusalem, 79, 


274 


618 


Alexander, bp. of Alexandria, 165n., 
298, 303, 304, 306, 309, 311, 
312, 316, 319, 388 

Alexander, bp. of Byzantium, 303 

Alexander of Abonitichos, 190 

Alexander the Great, 4, 5, 122, 182, 
326, 362, 373 

Alexander, son of Herod, 20 

Alexander Severus, 74, 75, 578n. 

Alexander, a Valentinian, 137, 595 

Alexander, high priest of Syria, 49 

Alexandra, mother of Mariamne, 
16n., 18, 19, 20 

Alexandria, 4—6, 59, 72, 78, 81, 86, 
126)-159,. 1615" 1977; 552, °184, 
226, 269, 274, 372, 406-7 

-— Church of, 42, 226, 227n., 
243, 269—73, 319, 461, 465-6, 
469, 474, 519, 522, 536, 556, 


599 

—— Synod of, 368, 376, 455 

-—— School of, 243, 277; 459-60, 
464-5, 468, 469, 474, 476-7 

See CATECHETICAL SCHOOL 

Alexandria Troas, 112 

Alford (Dean), 246n., 249n. 

Allard (P.), 355n., 398n., 399nn., 
407n., 408n. 

allegorism, 97°8, 127, 272-3, 277, 
493 

Allen (A. V. G.), 157n., 158n., 
t6on,, '262n., “X17 5n.,° 277s, 
178n. 

Alogi, 169 

altars, 582 

Alypius, 494, 495 

Amator of Auxerre, 563 

Ambivius (M.) 23 

Ambrose (St.) bp. of Milan, 227n., 
266, 324n., 389, 392, 399, 411, 
412n., 413—33, 450-1, 471, 
ne 493, 495, 561, 568, 579, 

2 


5 

Ambrosius, friend of Origen, 198, 
275 

Ammianus Marcellinus, 65n. ,351n., 
353n., 354n., 358n., 36In., 
363n., 368n., 392n., 414, 415, 
484, 550n. 

Ammonius, monk, 446 

Ammonius Saccas, 200, 274 

Amorphia, 592 

Amos, 2n. 

Amshaspands, 123, 184 

Anak, Armenian noble, 552 


INDEX. 


Ananias, 31 

Anastasia, church of the, 394 and n. 
anastasis, 575 

Anastasius, bp. of Rome, 521 
Anastasius, syncellus to Nestorius, 


458 
Anastasius, bp. of Thessalonica, 531 
anathema, 314, 315, 336, ned 339 
345n., 397D., 452n., 456, 536 
Anatolius, bp. of Constantinople, 


473, 531, 535-6, 572 
anchor, symbol in Catacombs, 239, - 


583 
Ancoratus of St. Epiphanius, 395n., 
6 


44 
Ancyra, synod at, see SYNODS 
Andrew (St.), 26, 42, 116, 1173. 
Acts of, 144n. 
Andronicus, 30n. 
Andronicus, governor, 437-8 
Anencletus or Anacletus, 105, 246 
Angelolatry, 128, 130, 206 
Angels, 577 
Anicetus, 120-21, 145, 221, 251 
Annas, high-priest, 23 
Annius Rufus, 23 
annus calamitosus, 65 
Anomoean Arians, 166, 344, 345 
Anselm, 176 
Anteros, bp. of Rome, 611 
Anthemius, 541 
Anthimus, bp. of Nicomedia, 87 
and n., 92 
Anthimus, bp. of Tyana, 385 
anthropomorphism, 154, 445 
Anthusa, mother of Chrysostom, 


440 
Antichrist, 72, 76, 242 
Antigonus, son of Aristebulus, 16n., 


17 
Antigonus of Socho, 6n., 10 
Antinomianism, 132 
Antioch, 35-6, 37, 85, 107, 166, 344, — 

353, 357, 366, 369—71, 549 
— Church of, 39, 40, 81) Lbe, 

112, 319, 519, 522, 536, 569 
wa School of, 168; 273, 277, 447, 
454-5, 457-8, 464, 469, 474, 
477, 506, 546 
riots at, a 364, 366, 369— 
71, 429-30, 4 
— schism at, Be 386- -7, 395, 396 
synods at, 167, 456 

See COUNCILS 

Antiochenes, Pseudo-Ignatiusto, 113 


INDEX. 


Antiochus the Great, 5n. 

Antiochus Epiphanes, 7, 8. 202 

Antipas, see HEROD 

Antipater, father of Herod 10, 16,17 

Antipater, son of Herod, 20 

Anitirrheticus, of Gregory of Nyssa, 
477 

Antithesets, Marcion’s, 138 

Antonine column, 69 

Antonines, age of, 63 

Antoninus Pius, emperor, 60—62, 


204. 
Antony (Mark), 17, 18 
gain (St.), 333-4, 488, 495, 585, 


5°7 

Antrim, 562 

Anulinus, a senator, 83 

Anulinus, proconsul of Africa, 290 

Aper (Arrius), 82-3 

Aphraates, 544, 549n., 550-51 

Apiarius, 526-7 

Apocalypse, 40, 50, 51 and n., 58, 
93, 94, 96n., 109, 133, 166, 
177-8 

Apocryphal writings, 97—102 

Apodemius, 360-1 

dwroxardgracts, Gregory of Nyssa’s 
doctrine of, 403n. 

Apollinaris (Claudius), 70 and n. 
Apollinarius, 368, 382, 387, 391, 
452, 453-4) 456, 476-7, 485 
Apollinarians, 391, 399n., 401, 402 

Apollonius, martyr, 71 
Apollonius of Tyana, 74, 202 
— Life of, 197-8 
Apollos, 271 
Apologies, 59, 159, 161, 204—8 
APOLOGISTS :— 
45, 54, 66, 157, 2038, 241n. 
Aristides, 59, 204-6 and n., 2Ion. 
Arnobius, 208 
Athenagoras, 65n., 66 
Greek and Latin, 203-4 
Justin Martyr, 48n., 59n., 65-6, 
158—60, 230, 231n., 233, 235, 
241n. 
Lactantius, 204, 208 
Melito of Sardis, 54, 59n., 60, 
65n., 66 
Minucius Felix, 65n., 66, 92n., 
208 and n. 
Quadratus, 59, 204 
Tertullian, 203, 206—8, 208n. 
Theophilus of Antioch, 65n., 161, 
2 


619 


Apostles, 29, 30n., 33, 34, 39, 41-2, 
93, 115, 119, 145, 212, 213, 214, 
216, 218, 221, 233; itinerant, 
102, 21 

Apostolical Constitutions, 8n., 105, 
110, 219, 223n., 228n., 233, 
236 and n., 573 

Apostolic Canons, 573, 574 

Apostolic succession, 223, 499 

applause, 167, 545, 578-9 

Apuleius, 184n. 

Aquila, version of, 276, 277, 482 

Aquila at Corinth, 38 

Aquileia, 480 

Aquinas (Thomas), 54n. 

Arabia, 42, 564 

Arabs, 74, 565 

Aramaic, 155, 547 

Ararat, 555 

Arbetio, 361 

Arbogast, 419, 430 

Arcadius, emperor, 434-5, 439-40, 
449, 451, 479, 550 

arch of Constantine, 282 

archbishop, 535 

archdeacon, 218, 570, 572 

Archelaus, son of Herod, 22, 23 

Archelaus, bp. of Caschar, 149 

Archons, great and lesser, 591, 


594 

Ardeshir, 548, 552 

Aretas, 22 

Arianism, 161, 163, 165n., 262, 
297—359; 375—400, 452, 453, 
475-7, 517; 524, 558—60, 566 

Arians, 371 ; at Milan, 422—6; at 
Constantinople, 443 

Ariminum, councilsat, see COUNCILS 

Arisdages, 553 

Aristeas, 5 

Aristides, apologist, see APOLO- 
GISTS 

Aristion, 117 

Aristobulus, 5n. 

Aristobulus, brother of Hyrcanus 
II., 10, 16 and n. 

Aristobulus, brother of Mariamne, 
16n., 17-18 

Aristobulus, son of Herod, 16n., 


20, 35 

Aristotle, 136, 139, 313n., 569; 
Categories, 492 

Arius, 298—304, 306, 307, 308, 
309, 311, 315, 317, 330, 388, 
399, 475, 559 


620 


Arles, synods at, 293, 316, 3423 pri- 
macy of, 526, 532-3, 570; monu- 
ments, 607n, 

Armagh, 564 

Armenia, 88, 92, 550n., 552—5, 566, 
509, 584n, 

Armenian versions, 204, 205, 555 

Arminius, deacon, 293 

Arnobius, apologist, 208 

Arsacidae, dynasty of, 552 

Arsacius, bp. of Constantinople, 450 

Arsacius, high-priest of Galatia, 

_ .362n, 

Arsenius, bishop, 317 

Arsinoe, 177 

Artavasdes, satrap, 552 

Artaxerxes I., 548, 552 

Artemius, praefect, 373 

Artemon, 164, 169-70 

Ascension, 28, 41, 478 

asceticism, 13, 25, 32, 126, 129—32, 
151, 197, 201, 203, 381-2, 393, 
409-10) 483, 487, 543, 545, 505, 


500-7 

Ascholius, bp. of Thessalonica, 393 

Asclepas, 333 

Asia, churches of, 36, 38, 39, 40, 
42, 67, III, 116, 119, 220, 

221, 251, 393 

province of, 38, 42, 116, 318 

Asmoneans, 9-10, 16, 17, 19, 36 

Assemani, 547n. 

Assouan papyri, 3n. 

Ataulfus, a Goth, 515 

Aterbius, 487 

Athanaric, Gothic chieftain, 380 

Athanasius, 100, IOI, 166 and n., 
167, 172, 229, 288, 290n., 
302n., 303, 305, 306, 309-10, 
313n., 316—18, 325, 330-1, 
333, 334-5, 338, 340, 341, 
342, 343, 3450., 346n., 350, 
368-9, 375n., 376-7, 379-80, 
387—9, 390n., 397n., 406, 433, 
458n., 466, 476, 518, 556, 557, 
568, 587 

‘atheism’, 46, 52, 65 

Athenagoras, apologist, 65n., 66 

Athens, 59> 269, 356-7, 381 

Atonement, 171, 176, 185, 300, 
403; see also REDEMPTION 

Attalus, martyr, 68 

Attalus, usurper, 524 

Atticus, bp. of Constantinople, 450, 


527 


INDEX. 


Atticus, bp. of Old Epirus, 53 

Attila the Hun, 468, 469, 530 

Atys, legend of, 136 

Audians, 318 

audientes, 229 

Augusti appointed by Diocletian, 84 

Augustine, bp. of Hippo, 8n., 135, 
151, 185, 202n., 230 and n., 
243, 289, 295, 412n., 413, 420, 
424, 433, 471, 480, 486, 489, 
490—517, 524, 525, 530, 560, 
571, 579, 5823 doctrines of, 
175, 499, 502—I1; Con/esszons, 


491—6, 507, 613n., Zhe City of 


God, 51I—15 

Augustus, see OCTAVIAN 

Aurelian, emperor, 81, 82 

Aurelian, politician, 435 

Aurelius (Marcus), 47, 54, 60, 63, 
64—71, 76, 80, 180, 189, 191, 
192, 194, 195, 198, 203, 598 

Aurelius, bishop of Carthage, 498, 
505, 527 

Aurelius Victor, gon. 

Ausonius, poet, 415, 417 

Autolycus, 161 

Auxentius, Arian, 424 

Auxentius, Arian bishop of Milan, 
416, 422 

Auxentius, pupil of Ulfilas, 560 

Auxerre, 563. 

Avitus, 540 

Axum, 556, 557 

Aziluth, 125 


Baal worship, 74 

Babington (Prof.), 614n., 615n. 

Babylas, bp. of Antioch, 79, 366, 
379 

Babylon, 3, 4, 8, 123, 149, 246n. 

Bacchus, 602 

Bagoas, eunuch, 20 

Bahran, king of Persia, 150; see 
VARANES . 

Balaam, 133 

Balder, 559 © 

Bannaventa, 562 

Baptism, 29, 30, 102, 173, 227n., 
228, 230-1, 235, 237, 241, 262, 
269 and n., 507, 543, 558, 
580; of John, 25, 30; of 
infants, 231 and n., 507; 
ceremonial of, 576-7 ; Hellenic, 
187; Mithraic 185 


INDEX, 


baptismal vow, 55, 231, 576 

_ baptistery, 422, 576 

Bar-Anina, 486 

Barbatio, general, 354 

Barcochab, 59 

Bardesanes or Bardaisan, 137, 141, 


595 
Barlaam and Fosaphat, 205 
Barnabas, Epistle of, 8n., 97—100, 
IOI, 103n., 109, 253 
Barnabas (St.), 30n., 31, 35, 36, 37, 
38, 97, 100, 106, 212, 213n. 
Baronius, 54n, 534 
Barsumas, a Nestorian, 467, 471, 


551 

Bartholomew (St.), 42 

Basil, bp. of Ancyra, 342n., 345, 
347, 349» 377, 378n., 382 

Basil, bp. of Amasia, 296n. 

Basil (St), bp. of Caesarea in 
Cappadocia, 168n., 356, 360, 
380—7, 390-1, 393-4 and n., 
402—4, 440, 445, 453, 545, 
568, 570, 581, 582, 587 

Basil, father of St. Basil, 381 

Basil, presbyter of Ancyra, martyr, 
372 

basilicas, 575; at Milan, 423 and n. 

Basilides, 134, 136-7, 138, 591-2 

Basilina, mother of Julian, 352 

Baslic, 563 

Baur, 9in., 93, 114, I15n., 134, 
165n., 167n., 170n., 17In., 
199n., 200n., 202n., 203n. 

Bazaar of Heraclides, 462n., 464 

Beausobre, quoted, 123n. 

Bede (Venerable), 229 and n., 564n. 

Bellarmine, Cardinal, 545 

Belser (Dr.), g1n. 

Benson (Abp.), 223, 224n., 265n., 
266n., 268n. 

Berenice, 247 

Bernard (Dr.), 132n., 212n. 

Bernard (St.), 112 and n. 

Bernice, 16n. 

Beryllus of Bostra, 165, 275 

Bethlehem: church at, 324, 5753 
erome at, 482, 485—8 

Bethune-Baker (Dr. J. F.), 142n., 
147n., 158n., 162n., 163n., 
165n., 166n., 168n., 170n., 
17in., 172M., 174N., 313n., 
314n., 336n., 340n., 344n., 
345n., 39In., 397M, 452n., 
4530-, °454n-, 456n., 4572, 


621 


458n., 460n., 462n., 464n., 


467n., 471n., 473n., 478, 
499n., 502n., 507n., 508n., 
509n. 

Beugnot (Mons.), 35In., 364n., 
392n., 404n., 418n. 

Bevan, 3n., gn. 

Biblias, martyr, 67 

Bigg (Dr.), 149n., 162n., 185n., 
192n., 195n., 198n., 200n., 
246n., 273n., 286n., 420n. 

Bingham, Antzguztes, 46n., 227n., 
229n., 443n., 603 and n. 

‘birth-days’ of martyrs, 581; see 
NATALE 

bishops, 42, 63, 102, 145, 212—28, 
236, 250, 266, 564 

Biterrae, synod at, see SYNODS 

Bithynia, 38, 54, 57, 233, 352m. 

Bito (Valerius), 107, 108 

Blandina, martyr, 67, 68, 73 

Bleek, 276n. 

Blemmyes, 464, 565 

Blesilla, widow, ascetic, 483, 485 

Bogomili, 151 

Boissier (M. Gaston), 67n., 86n., 
2820.,.- 351Ds, 352.4 307s, 
408n., 414n., 41$n., 420n. 

Boniface, Count of Africa, 500, 
515-16, 517 

Boniface, pope, 525, 527-8 

Bonosus, foster-brother 
Jerome, 480 

Mates fags destroyed, 87, 
19 

Bordeaux pilgrim, 582 

Bosio, 609n. 

Bostra, synod at, 165 

Botheric, 428 

Bourbon, general, 524 

Brace (C. L.), 188n. 

Brahmins, 197 

brethren, the Lord’s, 29, 30n., 31, 
533 see JAMES 

Bright, 293n, 395n., 463n., 473n., 

'  §04n., 506n., 509n., 525n. 

Brightman, 236n. 

Britain, 39, 52n., 84, 184, 392, 409, 
423, 479, 561-2, 565 ; Constan- 
tine proclaimed emperor in, 89 

Brooke, 144n, 

Bruce, traveller, 8n., 55 

Brutus, 195 

Bryennius (Archbp.), 101, 103, 107 
and n. 


of St, 


622 


Buddas Terebinthus, 149 

Buddhism, 126 

Bulgaria, 151 

Bull (Bp.), 166n., 313n., 332n. 

Bunsen (Chevalier de) 114, 229n., 
253n., 258, 264n. 

Burdegala (Bordeaux), synod at, seé 
SyYNODs 

Burkitt (Prof.), 32n., 41n., I41n., 
§43n., 547n., 551n., 569n. 

Burn (Dr. A.), 312n., 424n. 

Burrhus, deacon of Ephesus, 111 

Bury (Prof.), 188n., 435n., 449n., 
450n., 564n. 

Butler (Dom), 334n., 447n., 465n. 

Bythus, 594 

Byzantium, 305, 569; see also Con- 
STANTINOPLE 


Cabbalah, see KABBALA 

Caecilianus, bp. of Carthage, 288, 
290—4, 304 

Caesar (Julius), 326, 417 

Caesarea (Palestine), 18, 36, 106; 
church of, 311, 319 

Caesarea (Cappadocia), 381, 383, 
385, 570 

Caesariani, 80 

Caesaro-papalism, 457 

Caesars appointed by Diocletian, 84 

Caiaphas, 23; his house, 582 

Cain, 140, 144, 590, 594. 

Cainites, 134, 136, 590 

Caius, 64 and n., 177 and n. 

Caligula (Caius), 35, 36 and n., 48 

Callinicum, riot at, 427 

Callistus, or Callixtus, bp. of Rome, 
169, 170, 171, 254—61, 519, 
598, 615; Catacomb of, 598, 
599, 608, 609 

Calpurnius, 561, 562 

Calvin, 476, 509n. 

Cambridge Zexts and Studies, 66n., 
73n., 206n., 263n. 

Candace, 34, 228n., 556 

Candida Casa, monastery of, 564 

Candidian, 463n. 

candles, 575 

canistrum, 609 

canon law, 574 

Canon; New Testament, 51, 63, 96 
and n., 118, 144 

Canons of Nicaea, 319, 527, 5353; of 
Antioch, 337n.; of Gangra, 573 


INDEX. 


Cantabrum, 92n. 

Canterbury, 408n. 

Capitol, 321 

Cappadocia, 30n., 70, 381, 385 

Cappadocian Fathers, 313n., 380-7, 
3970., 402—4, 433, 445, 455-6 

Captivity of the Jews, 3, 123, 124 

Caracalla, emperor, 73, 271 

Carbonari, 50n. 

Carinus and Numerian, 82-3 

Carneades, Academic philosopher, 
19In. 

Carpocrates, 134, 136, 142n., 252 

Carpophorus, 255-6 

Carpus, bp. of Thyatira, martyr, 79 

Carthage, 74, 288, 491, 515, 517; 

._ Church of, 222—6, 243, 263, 

269, 289, 290—95, 519, 570; 
cabal at, 290—2 ; see SYNODS 

Carus, emperor, 82 

Cassian, John, 508, 587 

Castalia, spring of, 370 

Castor and Pollux, 321 

Castricia, 444 

Catacombs, 239-40 and n., 244n., 
247-8, 422, 480, 583, 596— 
616; Jewish, 600, 606 

Catechetical School of Alexandria, 
161, 165, 168, 271, 275, 381 

catechist, 229 


catechumens, IOI, 228—30, 236-7 | 


Cathari, 261-2. See PURITANISM 

Catholic Church, 145, 209, 223; 
organization of, 209—42 

Catholic Faith, 145 

Catholicity, 398 

*Catholicus’, 553 

Cato the Elder, 191n., 195, 285 

Cato the Younger, 194 

Catullus, 604n, 

Celestine, bp. of Rome, 462, 528, 
530, 539, 563, 564 

Celestius, 503—5, 507, 510, 525 

celibacy, 286, 432, 487; of clergy, 

_ 320, 438, 521, 557, 573 

Celidonius, 533 

Celsus, 45, 46, 47, 65n., 76, 178, 
190, 196, 202; his treatise, 
198—200 

Cephas, see PETER 

cenobite monks, 587 

censor, office of, 76, 79 . 

Centumcellae, 262 

Cerdon, friend of Marcion, 138 

Cerealis, governor, 437 


INDEX. 


Cerinthus, 134, 142, 1 

Couieriee Geek 

Chalcedon, council of,see CouNncILs 

charismata, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 
222, 225 

charitable organization, 581 

Charles, (Dr. R. H.), 8n., 558n. 

Charles Martel, 282 

Chase (Bp.), 246n. 

Chi and Kappa, 369 

children, exposure of, 285-6 

Children of the Sun, 151 

Chiliasm, see MILLENARIANISM 

China, 241n., 467, 550, 563 

chorepiscopi, 570 

Chosroés, 552 

Chrestus, tumults in Rome re- 
specting, 38, 48 

Christ, times of, 1528; honoured 
by Alexander Severus, 74; 
coming of, 103 

Christ, Gnostic ideas of, 140, 589, 
599, 594, 595 

Christian, name of, 34 

Christianity : a re/igzo lictta, 81, 82, 
Qin.; a religie zliczta, 45, 48, 
59, 63, 206; Jewish, 95n. 

Christmas, 580 

Christology: progressive in New 
Testament, according to Baur, 
94—6; Marcion’s, 140-13; of 
Clementine Literature, 143; of 
Letter to Diognetus, 157; of 
Justin, 160, Arian, 302n. 

Christological controversy, 457-8, 
478; see INCARNATION, Locos 
DOCTRINE, etc. 

Chronicle of Eusebius, 482 

Chronicon Paschale, 120n., 224n. 

Chrysanthius, 355 

Chrysaphius, eunuch, 468, 472 

Chrysostom (St. John), 40, 101, 
110, 230n., 259, 277, 371, 396, 
426, 429-30, 440—51, 457, 458, 
461, 466, 475, 489, 506, 518, 
522, 561, 570, 571, 578, 579 

Church: Constantine’s legislation 
respecting, 286; development 
of, 210-11; 289, 479; organiza- 
tion of, 209—237 

Church: Apostolic, 29—40, 210; 
Manichaean, I51 

churches: form of, 574-5; first 
erected, 75, 519-20 ; decorations 


of, 575-6 


623 


Cibalis, battle of, 295 


Cicero, 17n., 45, 421, 491, 493 

Cilicia, 37, 449 

Circesium, 542 

Circumcellions, 294-5, 412n., 497, 
500, 501 

circumcision, 98, 557 

Clarke; Wy (K-00 S¥. Base] the 
Great, 581n. 

Classics, study of, 367-8, 405, 421, 
481, 485, 491 


classification of Gnostic sects, 


133-5 

Claudian, poet, 69 and n., 413-14, 
415, 439n. 

Claudius, emperor, 35, 38, 41, 48 

Claudius Albinus, 72 

Claudius Apollinaris, 70 and n. 

Claudius Ephebus, 107, 108 

Claudius Severus, 189 

Clemens (Flavius), 44, 52, 104, 106, 
108n., 247, 249 

Clement of Philippi, 103 

Clement of Alexandria, 5n., 42, 64, 
g6n., 97, 99, 100, I19, 120n., 
135, 148-9, 154, 161-2, 173, 
175) 1799. F7S, + 186m; 203, 
239n., 246n., 257N., 271, 273, 
276, 600, 603, 605-6 

Clement of Rome, 40-1, 44, 46n., 
g6n., 103—9, 142-3, 215-16, 
233, 234, 246, 452n., 606 

—— Epistle of, 41-2, 52, 97n., ror, 
103—9, 215-16, 227n., 234, 
244n., 249-50, 259-60, 276 

— Second Epistle, see CLEMEN- 
TINE LITERATURE 

Clements mentioned by Tacitus, 


104 and n. 
Clementine Literature, 95, 101, 
103, 105, 106-7, 109, 141, 


142-3, 313n. 

Clementine Liturgy, 219, 236 

Cleomenes, 170 

Cleopatra of Egypt, 18 

Cleopatra of Jerusalem, 21 

clergy, 211, 214, 225, 483-4, 557, 
570-71; laws respecting, 88, 
286-7; pagan, 362; see CELI- 
BACY 

Cletus, 105 

clinici, 262 

Codex Alexandrinus, 107, 109 

Codex Sinaiticus, 97, 109, 253 

Coele-Syria, 382, 470 


624 


Cohortatio ad Graecos, 159 

Colluthus, 303 

Cologne, 575: catacombs at, 597 

Colossians, Epistle to, 40, 96n., 
129, 130 

Colossian heresy, 40, 129-30, 131 

Comana, Chrysostom died at, 450 

commemoration of saints in Eucha- 
rist, 577 

commentaries, 126, 144, 275, 486, 


555 

Commodus, emperor, 48, 66, 71, 
195, 255 

Commonitorium, 527, 562 

Communicatio idiomatum, 460 

Communion of Saints, 611 

competentes, 229 \ 

Confessions of St. Augustine, see 
AUGUSTINE 

confessors, 78, 240, 267, 201 

Connaught, 562, 563 

Connolly (Dom), 551n. 

conscience, liberty of, 92, 279 

consecration of Elements, 234, 235 

Conservatives, so-called, 331, 336 

Constans, emperor, 295, 333, 337; 
338, 339, 341, 342, 497 

Constantia, empress, sister of Con- 
stantine, 296, 301 

Constantia, daughter of Constantine, 
353> 354n. 

Constantine, 84n., 88—92, 203, 
211, 279—327 passim, 328-30, 
333, 336, 350, 359, 361, 363, 
389, 397, 494, 497, 519, 520, 
546, 575, 576, 580, 582, 598 

Constantine II., 333, 338 

Constantine, usurper, 526 

Constantinople, 103, 317, 325, 327, 
393, 394—7, 398—401, 403, 
434, 439, 447, 448, 450, 458, 
472, 474, 522, 541, 561, 569 ; 
see also BYZANTIUM 

council of, see COUNCILS ; 
synods at, see SYNODS 

Constantius Chlorus, 84 and n., 
88, 89, 280 

Constantius, emperor, 328—50, 351 
and n., 353, 359, 357s 358, 359, 
363, 375, 377, 378n., 382, 388. 
404, 417 

converts, 228, 287 

Conybeare, 13n., 47M, 
334n., 555n., 584n. 

copiatae, 581 


270n., 


INDEX. 


Coponius, 23 
Coptic church, 474 
Coracion, 178 
Corinth, 38, 39; church of, 40, 41, 
107, 214, 233 
Corinthians, St. Paul’s Epistles to, 
40n. , 51, 93, 94, 108, 128, 214, 
232, 233°4 
—— Epistle of Clement to, 40-1, 
46n., 52, 101; 103, 107—9, 
215, 227N., 234, 259 . 
Cornelius, centurion, 34-5, 228n. 
Cornelius, bp. of Rome, 226, 261, 
262, 268n., 572, 6113; Cata- 
comb of, 609 
Corona Milités, Tertullian’s, 235 
Costobar, 20 
Cotton (Dr.), 7n. 
Councils, procedure of, 574 
COUNCILS :— 
General, 222, 304, 320n., 329, 
395, 399, 443, 451, 456, 
463, 472, 535» 546, 565 
Alexandria, 368, 376, 390n., 


455 

Antioch, 332, 336—8, 339-40, 

, 449» 559 

Ariminum, 347—9, 375, 376, 377 

Arles, 288, 293, 316, 342 

Chalcedon, 320n., 337n., 395n., 
443n., 469, 472—4, 534—6, 
537, 551s 552, 565, 566, 
574n. 

Constantinople, 320n., 395-7, 399, 
403s 443, 456, 535, 536, 546 

Elvira, 46, 228n. 237, 573 

Ephesus, 463-4, 466, 506, 546, 
5513; the ‘* Latrocinium’, 
471-2, 473) 536, 5740. 

Gangra, 573 

Jerusalem, 36-7, 95, 245, 332n- 

Laodicea, 311n. 

Milan, 342-3, 356, 375 

Nicaea, 174, 304—320, 329-30, 
537) 538, 544, 559, 507; 


5740. 
Philippopolis, 338-9 
Sardica, 228, 338-9 
Seleucia, 347—9, 377; 382 
Sirmium, 344—7 
Toledo, 259, 260 
Trent, 486 

See SYNODS 
Creation, theories of, 123, 128, 142, 
143, 589, 594 


INDEX. 


CREEDS :— 

early, 153 and n., 230, 3r1n. 

Athanasian, 4172n. 

of Antioch, 336—8 

Constantinopolitan, 395n. 

the Dated, 337, 347, 348 

of the Dedication, 336—8, 345n., 
346, 349, 377 

Eusebian, 308, 311-12 

the Macrostich, 340 

Nicene, 172, 243, 308, 311n., 
312—16, 318, 320, 329-30, 
336, 341, 343, 348, 350, 
389n., 395 and n., 400, 
452n. 

of Nice, 347—9, 350, 382 

of Sirmium, 344—7 

the Union, 464 

Crescens, philosopher, 66, 159 

Cresconius, 500 

Crete, Christianity in, 38, 213n. 

diay attributed to Christians, 67, 

13 

criminals and debtors, 
specting, 71, 284 

Crispus, son of Constantine, 281n., 
288, 296, 321, 322, 326 

criticism, Biblical, 277 

Critolaus, Peripatetic philosopher, 
Igtn. 

Cross, 421, 5573; in catacombs, 
605 ; sign of, 103, 367, 605; 
invention of, 324; Constan- 
tine’s vision of, 281-2 

crucifixion abolished, 285 

Cruttwell, 139n. 

cubiculum, 611 

Cubricus, 150 

Cucusus, 400 ; Chrysostom at, 449-50 

Cumont, 185n. 

Cunningham (Dr. W.), 509n., 510n. 

Cureton (Dr.), 318n. ; on Ignatian 
Epistles, 114, 115 

Curetonian Syriac MS., 547 

curiales, 287, 367 

Curubis, Cyprian exiled to, 79 

cynics, 360 

Cyprian, bp. of Carthage, 77, 78, 
79, 80n., 222—4, 227n., 238n., 
24In., 252n., 257, 259, 260—3, 
265—9, 288, 289, 291, 423, 
487n., 568, 574, O11, 615 

Cyprus, 36 

a gat province of, 59, 436—9, 
599 é 


laws ree 


625 


Cyril, bp. of Alexandria, 270, 373, 
406, 458—67, 469, 475s 476, 
477; 527, 536, 546 

Cyril, bp.of Jerusalem, 324n., 458n., 
571, 576, 5773; Catechetical 
lectures of, 571, 576—8 

Cyrus, diocese of, 470 

Cyrus the Persian, 548 


Dacia, 559 

Daemon of Socrates, 176 

daemons, 198, 199, 201, 240 

Daillé on Ignatian Letters, 114 

Daire, 564 

Dalaradia, 562 

Damas, bp. of Magnesia, 111 

Damascus, 34 

Damasus, bp. of Rome, 387, 397n., 
398, 411, 422, 456, 480, 482, 
484, 518, 520, 527, 564, 
583, 599 

Daniel, 608 ; Book of, 8, 202 

Dante, 54n., 322, 499n., 616 

‘ Dated’ Creed, see CREEDS 

David, 21, 608; descendants of, 


53 

Davids (T. W. Rhys), 126n. 

Davidson, I55n. 

Da Vinci (Leonardo), 607 

deacons, 33-4, 102, 116, 213, 214, 
ZE5, 210, 215,1 242, 224,227, 
235, 236, 250, 484, 521, 571, 
572, 60In. 

deaconesses, 56, 215, 236, 573 

De Broglie, 282, 286n., 287n., 


290n., 356n., 376n., 380n., 
387n., 391n. 
decad, 593 


Decius, 76; edict of, 77; persecu- 
tion by, 76—9, 257, 261, 266, 
268, 272 

De Civitate Det, Augustine’s treatise, 
5II—I5 

decretals, 521 ; false, 109 

decurionate, 286 

Dedication, Creed of, see CREEDS 

dedication festivals, 613 

delators, 45, 52, 71. 

Demeter, 187 

Demetrias, 
507-8 

Demetrius, bp. of Alexandria, 80 
and n., 226, 271, 274, 275, 
277 


Pelagius’ letter to, 


626 INDEX. 


Demetrius II., 8 
Demiurgus, 128, 133, 139, 140, 589, 


94 

Dekaron bp. of Constantinople, 
379s 394, 399N., 400 

Demosthenes, cook to the emperor 
Valens, 384 

De Pressense, 114, 169n., 171n., 
239n., 240n. 

De Rossi, 217n., 240n., 247, 248, 
249, 599, 608 

De Soyres, 174n, 224n. 

Desposyni, 53n. 

Determinism, 510 

De Vita Contemplativa, 13n., 334n. 

Devs, 123 

Diana of Ephesus, 182 

Dianius of Caesarea, 335, 349, 
382-3 

Diaspora, 3, 4, 33 

Diatessaron, 144, 543, 547, 555 

Dichu, 563 

Dictionary of Christian Antiquities, 
226.5 -230n.,;* 260n.4" §73n., 
614n. 

Dictionary of Christian Biography, 
41n.,.790.,,91n., TOSu., 1O7n., 
1150); '119n.,° 124n.,  TZ6n-, 
144n., I5In., 166n., 174n., 
202n., 288n., 308n., 324n., 
342n., 346n., 366n., 382n., 
390n., 394n., 40In., 410n., 
435n., 436n., 438n., 439n., 
441n., 445n., 465n., 467n., 
470n., 48In., 498n., 509n., 
521n., 534n., 539n., 547n., 

553+, 5550. 

Didach2, 100—3, 215, 219, 229, 
230, 231n., 233, 234 

Didascalia, 217n. 

Didymus the Blind, 381, 485 

Dill (Prof.), 52n., 182n., 183n., 
184n., 185n., 188n., I9In., 
196n., 20In., 217n., 405n., 
416n., 484n., 523n., 60In., 
614n., 615 

Diocletian, 44, 47, 48, 63, 82—90, 
151, 196, 269, 277, 279, 280, 

_ 283, 284, 285, 326, 425, 553 

diocese, 220, 470 

Diodorus, bishop of Tarsus, 440, 
447, 454, 457 

Diogenes, a Stoic, 19In. 

Diognetus, Letter to, 157 

Dion Cassius, 43, 44n., 52n., 69, 70 


Dionysius, bp. of Alexandria, 79, 80, 
I, 165-6, 168, 172, 177, 178, 
226, 24In., 262, 2°74; 302, 
313n. 

Dionysius, bp. of Corinth, 96n., 
109n, 

Dionysius, bp. of Milan, 343 

Dionysius, bp. of Rome, 166, 262, 


313n. 

Dioscorus, bp. of Alexandria, 406, 
467, 469—74, 531, 536 

Dioscorus, confessor, 78 

Dioscorus, monk, 446 

Diospolis (Lydda), Synod at, see 
SYNODS 

Dis, 183, 616 

disciplina arcani, 146n., 229-30 

discipline, 40, 214, 218, 236-7, 267, 


9 
discourses of our Lord, 24 
divorce, 237 
Dobschutz, 35n., 52n., 
129n., 133n., 253n. 
Docetism, 127, 131, 134, 145, 156, 
172, 176, 452, 476 
doctors, present at councils, 574 
dodecad, 593 
Déllinger (Dr.), 258 
Dominica, empress, east 393 
Domitian, emperor, 44, 48, 52, 53, 


128n., 


64, 103, 104, 108, 197, 247, 


248n., 249 

Domitian, praefect, 354 

Domitilla, see FLAVIA 

Domnus, bp. of Antioch, 470, 471 

Domnus, bp. of Samosata, 298n. 

Donation of Constantine, 321-3 

Donatists, 269, 288—95, 304, 316, 
326, 329, 490, 496—50I, 503, 
506, 515 

Donatus of Casae Nigrae, 292, 293 

Donatus the Great, 292, 293, 497 

Donatus (Aelius), grammarian, 
480 

door-keepers, 218, 236, 572 

Dorner, Person of Christ, 158n., 
160n., 161 and n., 162n.,165n., 
172n., 298n., 300n., 302 and n., 
309n., 310N., 4530., 4 67n. 

Dorotheus, chamberlain of Dio- 
cletian, 85, 87 

Dorotheus, disciple of Origen, 277 

Dositheans, IIn. 

Drummond, 156n. 

Duad and Monad, 143 


ee 


ee es a Pore 


INDEX. 


ducenarius, secular office, 167 
Duchesne, 218n., 220n., 228n., 


229n., 5390., 553n. 


Easter, question of, 120-1, 221, 
251, 318, 580, 584; public 
holiday, 398n. 

Eastern Church, 254-5, 325, 377, 
381, 434-76, 502, 537-5, 547 

Ebionites, 118, 134, 141, 142, 150, 


156-7 

Eborius of York, 293 

Ecclesiasticus, 6 

Ecdicius, praefect, 369 

eclecticism, 137, 193, 570, 573 

Edersheim, 6n. 

Edesius, 556 

Edessa, church of, 41, 141, 466-7, 
543, 546 pee 

edicts: of Decius, 77; of Diocletian, 
87-8; of Galerius, 90-1; of 
Gallienus, 80, 82, 86; of 
Maximin Daza, 92; of Valerian, 
79-80; of Constantine, 92; of 
Julian, 366, 376, 405; of 
Theodosius, 398-9, 401, 412n.; 
of Honorius, 525 

edict of Milan, 45, 92, 243, 269, 
279; 283-4, 300; 349, 567 

Edomites, 16n., 19 

Egypt, 3, 6, 64, 72, 91n., 126, 474; 
religion of, 126, 137, 265-6, 


591 

ined Gospel according to, 
13 

éxxAnola, 209-10, 217 

Elagabalus, see HELIOGABALUS 

elders, see PRESBYTERS 

Eleazar, high-priest, 23 

election, 509 

election of clergy, 226-7 

Eleusinian Mysteries, 59, 
355» 357 : 

Eleusius, bp. of Cyzicus, 345, 377, 
378, 379, 400 

Elijah in catacombs, 602 

Elizabeth, Queen of England, 32o0n., 

6 


187-8, 


32 

Elkesai, Book of, 141 

Elkesaites, 143, 150 

Elvira, Council of, see COUNCILS 

Emanations, Gnostic, 123, 589 

emblems in catacombs, 602, 604, 
606 


627 


Emesa, idol of, 74, 184 

Emmelia, mother of St. Basil, 381 

Emperors, 48—92, 540-1 ; see also 
CONSTANTINE, CONSTANTIUS, 
JULIAN, THEODOSIUS, etc. 

Encratites, 66, 144, 412n. 

Encyclopaedia Biblica, $n., 93n., 
213n., 234n. 

energumens, 240, 572 

Enoch, 143 

Enoch, Book of, 6n., 8-9, 558 

En-Soph, 124 

Epagathus (Vettius), 67 

Epaphras, 118 

Ephebus (Claudius), 107 

Ephesians, St. Paul’s Epistle to, 
40, 96n., 130, 141, 214, 593 

Ephesians, Epistle of Ignatius to, 
III, 114 

Ephesus, 111, 116, 119, 159, 213n., 
244; church of, 38, 39, 40, 


42, i234, 2713, ¢ heresy, at, 
130—2; council at, see 
CouNCILS 


Ephraim Syrus (St.), 544-5, 555 

Epictetus, 189, 192, 194, 195, 203 

Epicureanism, 189-90, 195, 196, 

_ 302, 419 

Epigonus, 170 

Epiphanius (St.), bp. of Salamis, 
IIn., 138n., 142n., 169n., 
2440.54 2700., © 315, 4 345n., 
395n., 445n.; 446, 447, 448. 

" 482n., 483, 487-8, 522 

Epiphany, 557-8, 580 

episcopacy, 42, 63, 102, 212-28 

epochs of Church History, 48, 63-4 

epitaphs, in catacombs, 602—4, 612 

épavos, 217 

Erdmann, 200n, 20In. 

Esau, 140 

Esdras, Fourth Book of, 558 

Essenes, 12-13, 26, 125-6, 131, 143 

Essenism, Christian; 129, 130n. 

Etchmiadzin, 553, 555 

Etheria, pilgrim, 575, 583 

Ethiopia, 34, 556 

Ethiopian church, 42, 556—8, 565, 
569 ; curious custom, 557-8 

Ethiopic version, 558 

Euarestus, pope, 601 

Eucharist, 29, 56n., 102, 109, 214, 
215, 219, 231—6, 241, 251,428, 
460, 577-8; evening celebra- 
tion, 584; in catacombs, 597, 


RR2 


628 


Eucharist (continued) : 
609, 611; in Cyril of Jerusalem, 
577; Mithraic, 185 
Euchites, 151 
Euchrocia, Priscillianist, 410, 412 
Euclid, 169n. 

Eudoxia, empress, 439, 442, 444, 
448, 449 
Eudoxius, bp. of Constantinople, 
345,» 349» 379 394, 452n. 

Eugenius, usurper, 419, 430 

Eugraphia, 444 

Euippus, bishop, 384 

Eulalius, bp. of Nazianzus, 402 

Eulalius, anti-pope, 527-8 

Eulogius, philosopher, 306 

Eulogius, bp. of Caesarea, 505 

Eunomius, an Arian, 380n., 399n., 
400, 401 

Euodius, bp. of Antioch, 110 

Euphratensis, 474, 542 

Euphrates, bp. of Cologne, 339, 340 

Eusebia, empress, 342, 356 

Eusebian party, 330, 332, 333, 
334-5» 339 337, 338,341, 343-4, 
345, 350, 380, 389 

Eusebius, bp. of Caesarea, historian, 
Sn., 7is, 130., 32na 40, aan 
48n., 52n., 53n., 54, 58n., 59, 
60, 62, 64n., 65n., 66n., 67n., 
vO, 71, 72n., ‘75m,.79n., SO0n., 
8in., 82, 85n., 86n., 87n., 


oIn., 92n., 97, 100, IOIn., 
103, 104, 405, ‘109n.,° 113, 
¥15, (116, 117, 116," 1i9n7, 


120n., I2In., 127, 141, 142n., 
144n., 146, 149n., 159, 161, 
162n., 165n., 166n., 167n., 
168, 169n., 170n., 177, 178n., 
197n,,' 202m, 0 °204 ai an: 
21Sh,, 2210.) 224070 ein 
244n., 245n., 248n., 250n., 
25ini, @52ti, 2k on\," 2o2n., 
2700. 27 Ih, 272, 2e70, a0, 
281 and n., 283, 287n., 293n., 
296n., 301, 305, 307—9, 310— 
312, 313, 315, 317n., 319n., 
324, 331-2, 336, 345, 458n., 
547n., 582 

Eusebius of Dorylaeum, 470 

Eusebius, bp. of Caesarea in Cappa- 
docia, 383 

Eusebius, bp. of Nicomedia, 301, 
303, 307, 311, 315, 316, 325, 
332 334, 352, 394, 559 


INDEX, 


irwes 


Eusebius, bp. of Samosata, 385 

Eusebius, bp. of Vercellae, 343 

Eusebius, chamberlain, 333, 3435 
354, 360, 361 

Eusebius, monk, 446 

Eusebius, martyr at Gaza, 372 

Eustathius, bp, ef Antioch, 313, 
316, 378, 555 

Eustathius, bp. of Sebaste, 345, 
349; 377, 379, 382, 386, 581 

Eustochium (St.), 483, 485, 486 

Euthymius, monk, 446 

Eutropius, historian, 283n. 

Eutropius, minister of Arcadius, 439, 
44°, 441 

Eutyches, 470—3, 531-2, 533 

Eutychianism, 456, 468, 
470—6, 528, 534—8 

Eutychius of Alexandria, 271 

Euzoius, deacon, 315 

ia ie bp. of Antioch, 468n., 
481 

Evagrius, friend of Julian, 352n. 

Evangelion da Méhallété, 537 

Evangelion da Mépharréshé, 537 

evangelists, 116, 214 

Eve, 135, 151, 589-90, 594 

Evodius, praefect, 411 

Ewald, 8 

exorcists, 131, 218, 225, 240, 570, 
572 

Exucontians, Arians called, 303 

Ezra, 3, 7 


469, 


Fabian, bp. of Rome, 79, 224, 258, 
261, 262 

Fabius, bp. of Antioch, 572 

Fabretti, 603 

Falconia Proba, 507 

‘familia’ of emperors, 43-4, 244 

family tribunals, 63n., 249 

famine, 65, 81 

Farrar, 46n. 

fast days, 102 

Fatak, 150 

Fausta, wife of Constantine, 84n., 
89, 28In., 321, 323, 326 

Faustinianus, legendary father of 
Clement of Rome, 106, 107 

Faustinus, 346n. 

Faustus and Faustinus, legendary © 
brothers of Clement of Rome, 
106 . . 

Faustus, deacon, 437 


INDEX. 


Faustus, Manichaean bishop, 493 

Faustus, of Britain, 562 

Fedilimid, 563 

Felicissimus, African deacon, 224, 
267, 268n. 

Felicissimus, Roman martyr, 611 

Felicitas, African martyr, 72-3, 
225n. 

Felicitas, widow, martyred with her 
seven sons, 66 

Felix, bp. of Aptunga, 291, 292, 

, 2935 294 

Felix (St.), 56n., 420, 424 

Felix III., pope, 538n. 

Felix, anti-pope, 346 

Feltoe (Dr.), Dzonsyius of Alexan- 
dria, 166n., 178n. 

Ferouers, 123 

Festal Letters, 318, 339n. 

Festivals of martyrs, 580 

Field, Hexapla, 277n. 

Figulus (P. Nigidius), 196 

Filocalus (Furius Dionysius), 422 

fires at Nicomedia, $7 

Firmilian of Caesarea in Cappa- 
docia, 167n. 

fiscus Judaicus, 52 

fish, emblem, 240, 606, 610n. 


Fisher, 149n., 157n., 161n., 162n,, | 


174n., 386n. 

fisherman, emblem, 606 

Flacilla, empress, 429 

Flacillus, 335 

flamens, 46, 322-3 

Flavia Domitilla, 44n., 52, 104, 
108n., 247—9; catacomb of, 
247-8, 598, 601, 602, 607 

Flavia Neapolis, 158 

Flavian, archbp. of Constantinople, 
469, 470-1, 531 — 

Flavian, bp. of Antioch, 429-30, 


441 

eae eens 44, 52, 106, 247—9, 
35 

Florinus, 120 

Fochlad, wood of, 562, 563 

Fortchernn, 563 

Fortescue (Dr. A.), 453n. 

Fortunatus, 107-8 

Frederick I. of Prussia, 326 

Freeman, 516n. 

Free Will, doctrine of, 11, 149, 
175-6, 184, 456, 458, 475-7, 
502—I1 

Fremantle (Dean), 481n. 


629 


Freppel (Mgr.), 225n. 

frescoes in catacombs, 602, 607-10 

Freundsberg, general, 524 

Friday observed as a fast, 102, 
287n., 580 

Friedlander, 142n. 

Frigidus, battles of, 419, 430 

Frith (I.B.) 281n. 

Fronto of Cirta, philesopher, 65 

Frumentius, 556, 557 

Fulminata, Legio, 69-70 and n. 

Fundanus (Minucius), proconsul of 
Asia, 54, 59, 204 

Fuscianus, praefect, 255 

eae belief in, 7, 8, 10, 12, 
185 


Gaiane (St.), 553 

Gainas, Gothic chieftain, 439, 443 

Gaiseric, Vandal chieftain, 420, 516, 
517, 518, 530, 540, 558 

Galatia, 38 and n., 129 

Galatians, Epistle to, 36, 37n., 38n., 
93, 108n., 202 

Galen, 169n., 196 

Galerius, emperor, 84, 86, 87—91, 
280n., 326 

Galerius, proconsul of Africa, 79 

Galilee, 17, 21, 23, 24 

Galla, wife of Theodosius, 426 

Galla Placidia, 432, 516, 530, 534s 


607 

Gallienus, 80, 81, 82, 83, 86, 261 

Gallus, Caesar, 333, 342, 352—4, 
360, 366 

Gangra, canons of, 573 

Gardner, Miss, 435n., 436n., 438n. 

Gaul, 22, 39, 84, 90, 92, 119, 349, 
357-8, 359, 408, 409, 423, 479, 
509, 540, 562, 565 ; church of, 
40, 64, 413, 521, 526, 532—43 
persecution in, 66—8, 408—13 

Gautama, 126 

Gaza, 372 

Gehenna, 9 

Genealogies : Asmoneans and Hero- 
dians, 16; Diocletian and col- 
leagues, 84; Flavian emperors, 
248 

Gentiles, 13, 24, 31, 33—8, 60, 61, 
93, 94, 143, 183 

George, intruding bp. of Alexandria, 
343» 368, 372, 373, 376, 406 

George of Laodicea, 347 


630 


George tears down imperial edict, 
87 and n. 

George (St.) martyr, 556 

Gerhard, 418n. 

Germanicus, martyr, 60 

Germanus (St.),. bp. of Auxerre, 
563 

Gervasius, martyr, 425, 426 

Geta, emperor, 73 

Gibbon, 43n., 71n.,75n., 82n., 84n., 
86, gon., 188, 272n., 285n., 


318, 32In., 343n., 35In., 
354n., 3570., 356n., 359n., 
362n., 363n., 392n., 418n., 
425n., 428n., 547n. 

Gieseler, 133, 134n. 

Gifford (S.) 73n. 

Gildo, 498 

gladiatorial games, 71, 229n., 238, 
288, 494 


glasses in catacombs, 605, 614 
Glover, Life and Letters, 352n., 
3570.) G0Inep, 3020), .3730., 


437n., 438n., 483n., 496n. 
Glycerius, fanatical deacon, 383 


Glycerius, emperor, 541 

Gnosticism, 119, I20, 122, 126, 
127—30, 133—46, 148-9, 153, 
157, 169, 175, 176, 183, 252, 


409, 452 
Gnostic Christ, 141-3, 452, 589, 


599, 593, 594, 595 
Gnostic, the Christian, 135, 148-9 
Gnostic sects, common features, 


127-9 
Gnostics, Alexandrian and Syrian, 


133 

Golgotha, 582 

Good Friday, 580 

Good Shepherd, in catacombs, 239, 
602, 603, 606, 615 

Gordians, three emperors, 75 

Gore (Bp.), 472n., 533, 537 

Gorgonius, chamberlain of Dio- 
cletian, 85, 87 

Gospels, 229; Papias concerning 
the, 117-18 

Gothi minores, 559 

Gothic version, 560 

Goths, 74, 380, 392-3, 427, 442, 
5II—I3, 523-4, 559-60, 561 

Grace, 458, 502—11 

Graces, in catacombs, 602 

Graetz, History of SFerusalem, 6, 
I2n, 36n., 126n. 


INDEX, 


Gratian, emperor, 392, 409—~I12, 
415, 417, 418, 422, 423 

Gratus (Valerius), 23 

Great Synagogue, 7 

Greek Church, 319, 450-1, 466-7, 
474, 475, 502, 547 

Greek New Testament, text of, 40 

Greek sources of Gnosticism, 135 

Gregorovius, Rome in the Middle 
Ages, 322n., 414n., 418n., 
422n., 484n., 519n., 520n., 
524, 529n., 5710. 

Gregory I., pope, 54, 261, 502n. 

Gregory III., pope, 599 

Gregory VII., pope, 254n. 

Gregory of Cappadocia, intruding 
bp, of Alexandria, 334, 335, 


~ 340 
Gregory the Illuminator; 88n., 544, 
552-3, 554 A 
Gregory, bp. of Nazianzus, 349; 


377, 381, 498 
Gregory (St.), of Nazianzus, 353n., 


356, 363n., 368n., 377, 380—7, 


399; 394—7; 399, 4OI, 402-3, 
445, 450, 455-6, 482, 485, 579 
Gregory of Nyssa, 77n., 378n., 
380—7, 403-4, 455-6, 476, 


477 
Gregory Thaumaturgus, 77n., 168, 


579 

Gregory of Tours, 68 

Guizot, 286n. 

Gurgenes, 556 

Gwatkin (Prof.), 155n., 
157n., -270n.,, 300ni, 
304n., 307n., 31In., 
313, 314n., 316n., 
33in., 3320., 3340., 339n., 
345n., 346n., 347n., 376n., 
378n., 379R., 380nn., 382n., 
387n., 389n., 391n., 395n. 

Gwyn (Dr.), 545n., 551m. 


156n., 
302n., 
Sr zit. 
3300, 


Hadrian, emperor, 54, 58, 59, 60, 
97n., 100, 2053 rescript, 59, 
204; letter preserved by 
Vopiscus, 183 

Hahn, 153n., 317n., 340n., 345n., 
347n., 395n., 456n.; 460n., 
463n., 464n., 525n., 56in. 

Halcombe (T. R.), article by, 435n. 

Hammond on Liturgies, 219n., 


235n. 


ey 


wet een ae > - 
oe ee ef 


Ce ig ee en See eh eh ee 


INDEX. 


Hanmer (Meredith), 461 and n. 
Hannibal, 288, 392, 418 
Harklensian Version, 547 
Harnack, 66n., 78n., 79n., IOI, 
P5045" 1270.5. 139.5: /145n. 
157n., 161n., 162n., 168n. 
1720.5 87 4ns, 257 5n.5. 0176n. 
277s 210N., 02590... 268n: 
299n., 302n., 313n., 316n. 
330n., 355n-, 397N., 403n. 
4o6n., 445n., 452n., 453n. 
4540., 455n., 456n., 458n. 
459n., 460n., 462n., 464n., 
466n., 470n., 47In., 472n., 
474n., 476, 477, 496n., 499n., 
50In., 502n., 504n., 506n., 
megn. peSLINs; =. 514... 5250., 


540n. 

Harris (Prof. Rendel), 73n., 102n., 
205, 225n., 263n. 

harvest homes, 613 

Harvey, 123n., 126n. 

Hastings’ Déctzonary of Bible, 11n., 
156n., 212n.; 246n., 547n., 


Nat Sel Ae ON NS te 


5550. 

Hastings’ Encyclopedia of Religion 
and Ethics, 299n.,403n., 453n., 
4572-5 506n., 553n., 558n., 
-561n 


56In. 

Hatch (Dr.), 188n., 190n., 217n., 
226n., 272n. 

Hausrath, I1n., 19n., 2In., 23n.,; 
24n., 26n. 

Healey, Valerian Persecution, 80n. 

hearers, order of penitents, 580 

Hebdomad, 591-2 

Hebert, Lora’s Supper, 232n., 234n. 

Hebrews, 15, 33 and n., 39 ; Epistle 
to; 7, 96n., 97n., 100, 108n., 
130n., 249; Gospel according 
to, 142; religion of, 2, 123 

Flebrews, Biblical History of, 2n. 

Hecate, goddess, 355 

Hecebolius, rhetorician; 355, 360n., 


371 

Hefele, 46n., 167n., 262n., 292n., 
30In., 303n., 304n., 305n., 
312n., 315n., 318, 319n., 333n., 
335n-, 3370., 339n., 342n., 
343n-, 344n., 345n., 346n., 
377n., 378n., 379n., 390n., 
41In., 448n., 449n., 456n., 
498n., 506n., 521n., 527n. 

Hegesippus, 13n., 32, 53, 145, 250n. 

Heinischen, 146n. 


631 


Helena, mother of Constantine, 
84n., 316n., 321, 323-4, 582-3 

Helena, wife of Julian, 357 

Heliodorus, 7n. 

Heliogabalus, 74, 184 

Heliopolis, 372 

Helladius, priest of Zeus, 407 

Hellenism, 7, 122, 157, 180-1, 
186—8, 201, 203, 205, 355, 
362, 364, 373, 404, 419-20 

Hellenistic Jews, 33 and n., 34, 35, 
127n. ; 

Helpidius, rhetorician, 409, 410 

Evwors, 457, 464, 469 

Henoticon, 538 

Henson, Canon, 216n. 

Heraclas, 165, 168, 226, 272, 275 

Heracleon, Valentinian Gnostic, 
96n., 137, 144, 595 

Herculaneum, 239 

Heresy a crime, 401-2, 410—I2 

Herford, Zalmud and Midrash, 
142n. 

Hermas, Shepherd of, 101, 104, 109, 
118, 229, 252-3, 257n. 

Hermippus, 5n. 

hermits, 585 

Hero, Pseudo-Ignatius’ epistle to, 


113 
Herod Agrippa I., 16n., 31, 35, 
6 


36n. 
Herod Agrippa II., 16n., 247 
Herod Antipas, 22, 35 
Herod the Great, 10, 16—22, 24, 
35» 36, 90, 281 
Herod, irenarch of Smyrna, 61 
Herodias, 22, 35, 449 
heroism of Christians, 81 
Heros of Arles, 505, 520 
Hesiod, 186, 368 
hetatriat, 57, 217 
Heurtley, 153n., 395n. 
Hexapla, 276-7 
Hezekiah, a brigand, 17 
Hieracas, 168 
Hierapolis, 116, 118 ; 
daughters at, 116, 117 
Hierocles, Neo-Platonist, 86, 196, 
200, 202 
Hieronymus, see JEROME 
Hilary of Poictiers, 168n., 337, 
342n., 344n., 345n., 346n., 


ora? ; 
Hilary, bp. of Arles, 532-3, 562 
Hilary, deacon, 536 


Philip’s 


632 


Hilgenfeld, 97n., 101, 114 

Himerius, sophist, 381 

Himerius, bp. of Tarragona, 520-1 

Hippolytus, a -» 64, 105, 129n., 
135, 136, 137, 138n., 142n,, 
148 and n., 168, P7In., 172, 
174, 244n., 255—9, 591, 598, 
615. See PHILOSOPHUMENA 

Hodgkin (Dr.), 380n., 392n., 394n., 
399n., 410n., 412n., 414n., 
415n., 423n., 425n., 43In., 
439n., 449n., 450n., 468n., 
512n., 514n., 523n. 

Holme, 506n., 508n., 517n., 561n. 

Holy Places, 323-4, 433; 581—3 

Holy Spirit, doctrine of, 171, 173-4, 
387, 390, 402-3, 544, 560 ; 
epiclests of in Eucharist, 577; 
in Gnostic system, 589, 591, 


593 

Homer, 186, 357, 368, 421; 
allegorized, 127, 272 

Homilies, Clementine, 95, 143 

ee 339) 344, 347, 35% 375; 
3 

Homoiousians, 344; see also SEMI- 
ARIANS 

homoiousion, 344n., 345 and n., 
397n. 

Homoousians, 344, 347 

homoousion, 163, 167-8, 172, 
312—16, 327, 331, 336, 3375 
341, 343, 344n., 345 and n., 348, 
377, 388, 397N., 400, 402 

Honoratus of Lerinum, 562 

Honorius, emperor, 430, 434-5, 
479; 498, 501, 522, 523—5; 527 

Hooker, 397n., 473n. 

Hope, Christian, in catacombs, 605 

Hormuzd, king of Persia, 150 

Hort (Prof.), 32n., 34n., 37n., 40n., 
g5n.,. 10on, § Eh.) 0m, 
132n., I42n., 144n., 146n., 
147n., 210n., 314n., 389n., 


395n.- 
Horus, or Stauros, 593, 594, 595 
Hosius of Cordova, 288, 304, 313, 


sp 338, 3390, 343, 345n. 
34 


hospitals, 581 

hospitality, 102, 221 

Hsi (Pastor), 241n. 

Human nature, doctrine of, 175 


Huns, 468, 469, 479, 534 
Hyginus, bp. of Rome, 138 


INDEX, 


Hymenaeus, 132 

hymns, 424 

Hypatia, 270, 439 and n., 465 ahd n. 

Hyperion, 184 

hypostasis, 160, 163, 171, 298, 300, 
310, 313n., 336, 348n., 377, 
386, 473 

Hyrcanus (John) I., 8, 10, 16 

Hyrcanus (John) II., 10, 16, 17 


Ialdabaoth, 589-90 

Ibas, bp. of pop 467, 469, 471-2, 
473, 546-7 : 

Iberians, 554, 55 - -6, 565 


iconoclasm, 405—8 

iconoclastic controversy, 321 

zconostasts, 575 

Idatius, Spanish bishop, 410, 413 

idolatry, attitude of Christians 
towards, 51, 237, 238, 240 

Ignatius, bp. of Antioch, 40, 54, 
57-8, 96n., 101, I1O—15, 172, 
190n., 209n., 220, 227n., 
244n., 250-1 

Ignatian controversy, I12—15 

Ignatian Letters, 58 and nn., 101, 
112-13, 145, 268; recensions, 
113-14 

Illingworth, 1§7n., 209n., 302n. 

Illyricum, 84, 90, 295, 521, 528, 
531, 559 

Imaun, Manichaean, 151 

immersion at baptism, 576 

immorality of heretics, 132-3 

Incarnation, doctrine of, 156, 
158, 17%, 172-3, 312, 391, 
402, 403, 451—78, 537; denied 
by Gnostics, 126, 128, 131, 
132, 452 

India, 126, 127, 181 

Innocent I., 462, 505, 518, 52I—5 

Innocent III., 572 

Innocents, massacre of, 21 

Inquisition, 431 

inquisitors, 412n. 

inscriptions in catacombs, 602—4, 
610—12, 614—16 

Instantius, 409, 410, 411, 412 

Invention of the Cross, 324 

Ireland, 561—4, 565, 566 

Irenaeus, bp. of Lyons, 40, 60, 64, 
67n., 96n., 104, 105, 116, 117, 
118, 119, I20, I2in., 129n., 
135, 136 and n., 138, 142n., 


INDEX, 


Irenaeus, bp. of Lyons (continued); 
145, 146, 147, 148, 172, 173, 
176 and n., 177, 218n., 221n., 
231n., 24In., 246, 251, 253, 
276, 312, 452n., 459, 521, 
591n., 592n. 

Isaac, 143; in catacombs, 608 

Isabella of Spain, 431 

Isaiah, book of, 3, 6n., 173 

Isapostolus, Constantine called, 326 

Isdegerd I., 550 

Isdegerd II., 554 

Ishmael, high-priest, 23 

Isidore, an Alexandrian, 441 

Isis, 136, 182, 183n., 184n. 

Israelites, 3, 4, 10, 14, 33n. 

‘israels’, 295 

Italy, 335, 416, 505, 507, 534, 540, 
558, 505 

Ithacius, Spanish bishop, 410, 411, 
413 

Izeds, 123 


Jacob, 143 

Jamblichus, 200, 202, 362 

James (St.), 30n.,. 31-2, 37,’ 60, 
94, 95, 103, 106, 109, I17, 
134, 142, 143, 214, 245, 259; 
Epistle of, 11, 31n., 32n., 94, 
g5n., 96n., 108n.; his chair, 
582 

James, brother of John, 36 

James (St.), of Nisibis, 544-5, 
550 

Jansenists, 253 

Jenkins (Canon), 
389n. 

Jeremiah, 3 

Jericho, 18, 21 

Jerome, 7n., 42, 71n., 97, 105, 
142n., 192n., 204, 227n., 271, 
296n., 320, 346n., 349, 394n., 
410, 415, 420, 421, 445, 448, 
480—90, 504-5, 512, 514, 515, 
522, 529, 571, 583, 587, 598 

Jerusalem, 4, 6, 17, 23, 29, 35, 59, 
269, 323-4, 3635 siege of, 99; 
destruction of, 40, 100, 250n. ; 
church of, 30—35, 39, 94, 
212, 214, 232, 319, 488, 568; 
Holy Places, 323-4, 582-3; 
Jerome at, 483; council of, see 
COUNCILS 

Jerusalem Codex, 107 


11pn., 375n., 


633 


Jesuits, 253 

Jesus Christ, 15, 22, 24, 25—28, 
29, 199; honoured by Alex- 
ander Severus, 74 ; represented 
in catacombs, 607 

Jesus, Gnostic views of, 142, 452, 
599; 592, 593, 594 . 

Fesus impatibilis, 151 

Fesus patsbtles, 150 

Jews, 3—14, 18—24, 30, 33 and 
D., 34, 37, 45, 46, 48, 51, 58, 
59, 61, 67n., 72, 122-3, 183, 
231In., 276, 362, 427 

Jewish Christians, 32, 33, 37, 38, 
39, 60, 94, 99, IOI, 103, 118, 
143 


Joannites, 449 
Johannine literature, 132, 134 
John (St.), 11n., 32n., 37, 40, 42, 
50, 51 and n., 60, 112, 116, 
117, I19, 120, 142, 146, 157; 
178, 220, 251 
Gospel of, 40, 94, 96n., 120, 
132Nn., 137, 144, 157, 232, 373, 
591, 592 
— Ist Epistle of, 96n., 118, 
132n. 
—— 2nd and 3rd Epistles of, 96n., 
132n. 
—— Acts of, 144n. 
See APOCALYPSE 
John the Baptist, 25-6, 31, 144; 
disciples of, 228n. ; festival of, 
580 ; eve, 584; his head, 582 
John the Presbyter, 117, 178 
John, bp. of Jerusalem, 488, 504, 


928 

John, first bp. of Iberia, 554 

John III., pope, 599 

John (St.), of Damascus, 205 

John, bp. of Antioch, 463, 465, 
466, 470, 546 

be on oe of, 486; in catacombs, 
0. 

Jonathan, priest-king, 9-10 

Joppa, 34 : 

Jordan, river-god representation of 
in catacombs, 602 

Joseph (St.), in catacombs, 609 

Joseph, patriarch of Armenia, 554 

Josephus, 5n., 6n., 7n., II, I3n., 
16n., £7n., 100, sSoa) 220... 
23n., 26, 32n., 36n., 125, 247, 
250n. 

Josiah, 36n. 


634 


Journal of Theological Studies, 
215n., 543n. 

Jovian, emperor, 376, 549-59, 
554 

Jovinian, monk, 486-7 

Jovinus, master of horse, 361 

Subilees, Book of, 6n., 553 

Judaea, 17, 22, 35, 52n.$ pro- 
curators, 23 

Judaism, 3, 5) 7, 10—14, 34, 58, 
59, 93> 94, 100, I15n., 122, 
127, 130N., 175, 270, 373, 595 

Judaizing Christians, 36, 39, 94, 
131, 134, 142, 557 

Judaizing Gnosticism, 142 

Judas of Galilee, 23, 27 

Judas Iscariot, 30, 590 

Judas the Maccabee, 7, 9, 10 

Jude, the Lord’s brother, descend- 
ants of, 53; Epistle of, 8n., 
g6n., 97N., 133 

Julia Domna, 197 

Julia, daughter of Drusus, 248-9 

Julian, emperor, 91, 180, 181, 196, 
200, 333, 349, 351—74, 375, 
376, 379, 381, 352, 404, 405, 
417, 420, 427, 440, 480, 497, 
542, 549, 554, 573 

Julian (Didius), emperor, 72 

Julian of Cos, 536 

Julian of Eclanum, 506, 510, 511, 


530 

Julius, bp. of Rome, 334-5, 339, 
341, 388, 587 

Julius II. rebuilds St. Peter’s, 575 

Junias, 3on. 

Jupiter Pluvius, 69 

Justin Martyr, 65-6, 67n., 96n., 
142n., 144, 146, 154, 158—60, 
161, 173, 175, 177, 185, 189, 
196, 203, 204n., 219, 233, 
241n., 276; see APOLOGISTS 

Justina, empress, 392, 418, 422—6, 
432 

Justinian, 195, 546 

Juvenal, 270n. 

Juventinus, a soldier, 371 


Kabbala, 124-5, 135, 589, 593 

Kaye (Bp.), 48n., 159n., 160n., 
174n. 

King, Guostics and their Remains, 
I24n., 125n., 137N,, 150n., 
i51n., 152n., 184n,, 185n. 


INDEX. 


Kingdom of Heaven, 8, 13, 15, 
r 25—7 39s 53, 209 

Kingsley, 439n. 

kiss of peace, 235, 236, 577 

kneelers, order of penitents, 580 

Knight (Dr.), 130n. 

Kobad, 556 

Korah, 223 

Koré, 187 

Krebs (Dr.), 78n. 

Kiinstle, 412n. . 

Kurtz, Church History, 
165n., 166n., 
233n., 242n. 


151n., 
1670.) 4/1730., 


Labarum, 92 and n., 281-2 

Lactantius, 44n., 85, 87n., 90 and 
n., 174, 204, 208, 239n., 242n., 
281 and n., 283n., 288, 326 

laity, 210, 236 

Lampridius, 185n. 

lamps in catacombs, 605, 606 

Lampsacus, synod of, see SYNODS 

Lanciani, 599 

Langlois, 553n. 

lanterns, 575 

Laodiceans, Epistle to, 141 

lapst, 259, 261, 267, 318 

Lararium, 74 

Lateran Palace, 322, 323, 519, 527 

Latin church, 327 

‘ Latrocinium,’ see COUNCILS 

Latronianus, Priscillianist poet, 412 

Laurence (St.), 615 

Laurence (Abp.), 558n. 

Law, Roman, 14, 44-5, 49, 217n., 
405 

Law of Moses, 3, 10, 11, 12, 36, 
37s 99, 125, 133, 139, 362 

Laws: of Constantine, 284—7; of 
Julian, 365-6; of Theodosius, 
398-9, 401, 408 

Lazarus, his grave, 583 

Lazarus of Aix, 505, 526 

Le Blant, 50n., 68n. 

Lecky, 186n., I9In., 192n., 194n., 
200n., 20In, 

Leitzmann, 453n. 

Lent, 398n., 584 

Leo I., pope, 468, 471, 472—4, 

480, 518, 520, 529—40, 572 

Tome of, 471, 473, 474, 536—8 

Leonides, father of Origen, 72, 


273-4 


re thle tee Neal in hai 


INDEX. 


Leontius of Caesarea, 553 
Leontius, bp. of Ancyra, 443 
Leontopolis, temple at, 6 
Lerinum, monastery of, 562 
letter of martyrs of Lyons and 
Vienne, 68, 221 
letters of commendation, 221-2 
Levites, 223 
Lias (Rev. J. J.), 227n., 395n. 
Libanius, sophist, 355, 356, 360, 
_ 373» 449, 578 
“ibellatict, 78 
libelli, 78n., 267 
Liberals, 344 
Liberian Catalogue, 105 
Liberius, bp. of Rome, 105, 341, 
342-3, 346 and n., 376, 379 
Libius Severus, 540-1 
Licinius, emperor, 90, 91, 92, 283, 
a 288, 295-6, 297, 303. 
Licinius, Caesar, 321 
Liddon, (Canon), 156n. 
lighting of lamps, 580 
Lightfoot (Bp.), 13n., 37n., 38n., 
42n., 44n., 52 and n., 54n., 
57n., 60n., 61n., 62n., 65n., 
.66n., 68n., 69n., 70, 95n., 
g7n., 103, 104, 105n., 106, 
1o7n., 108n., 109n., 110 and 
nn., IfIn., 112 and n., 113n., 
I14n,, 115 and n., 116n., 118, 
120, 125n., 126, 129, 146n., 
Pacms 1 72h, 190n., “192n., 
aan, *210n,, 213n.,° 216n., 
217n., 220n., 233, 234, 244n., 
245n., 246n., 247, 248n., 
250n., 258, 271n., 307, 332n. 
Linus, 105, 246 
literae communicatoriae, 222 
literalism, 277-8 
Liturgy, 233, 577; the ‘Clementine’, 
219, 236; at Jerusalem, 577 
Livy, 421 
Aoylwy xuptaxdv eéfjynots, treatise 
by Papias, 116 
Logos, doctrine of, 40, 94, 155-6, 
157—67, 171, 173, 197, 301, 
310, 312, 342n., 391, 452—78 
Aéyos é\n67s, Celsus’ work, 198 
Loigaire, 561 
London, 293 
Long (G.), 70n. 
Lord’s Prayer, 230; said thrice a 
day, 102 
Lucan, poet, 183n., 193 


635 


Lucian, martyr of Antioch, 92, 168, 
277 and n., 298 and n., 302, 
336 ee: 

Lucian, chamberlain of Diocletian, 


5 
Lucian, satirist, 188, 190-1, 240n. 
Lucianists, 332 
Lucifer, bp. of Calaris, 343, 378 
Lucilla, 292 
Lucina, crypt of, 249 
Lucius, bp. of Rome, 262 
Lucretius, 189 and n. 
ludt saeculares, 75, 282 
Luke (St.), 13n., 37, 39, 40; writings 
of, 96n., 140-1, 142 ; see ACTS 
Lumby (Prof.), 395n. 
Lutetia Parisiorum, 357 
Luther, 476 
Lydda, 34, 505, 525 
Lyons and Vienne, martyrs of, 67-8, 
70, 76, 78, 221, 225 


Macarius, bp. of Jerusalem, 324 
Macarius, presbyter, 334-5 
Macarius, proconsul of Africa, 497 
Maccabees, 3n., 7—I0, 19; books 
of, 7n., 558; commemorated, 
8 


ie) 

MacCarthy, Annals of Ulster, 2570. 

Macedonia, 38, 295 

Macedonius, official, 411 

Macedonius, heretic, 349, 390, 394 

Macedonianism, 390, 399n., 401 

Macrianus, 79 

Macrina, grandmother of St. Basil, 
81 

Nicene (St.), sister of St. Basil, 
81 

Macrobius, 20n., 182n., 184 

‘Macrostich’ creed, 340 

Madaura, persecution at, 66 

Mafia, 50n. 

Magi in catacombs, 607, 608 

Magians, I51 

magic, 79 

Magnentius, usurper, 341, 342, 353, 
354 

Magnesia, III 

Magnesians, Ignatius writes to, III 

Mahaffy, 5n., 182n., 269n. 

Majorian, 540 

Majorinus, rival bp. of Carthage, 
292, 293 

Malan (S. C.), St. Gregory, 553n. 


636 


Malcolm, History of Persia, §5§2n. 

Mamaea, 74 

Mamertinus, orator and poet, 359, 
360 

Man: First, 159, 589 ; Second, 589 

Mandaeans, 150 

Manes, 124, 149-50, I5I, 152 

Manichaeans, 149—52, 399n., 401, 
409, 412n., 498, 548; Augus- 
tine, 135, 151, 491—3, 511 

Mansel (Dean), 137n., I4I, 143, 
144n., 146n., 147, 149n., 570n. 

Marcella, 512 

Marcellina, lady Gnostic, 252 

Marcellina, sister of St. Ambrose, 


425 
Marcellinus, bp. of Rome, 262 
Marcellinus, martyr, 593; cata- 
comb of, 610, 615 
Marcellinus, proconsul of Africa, 


501 

Marcellus of Ancyra, 172, 306, 
313, 317, 335, 336-7, 338-9, 
349, 341, 3870. — 

Marcellus of Campania, 342 

Marcellus, pope, 601In. 

Marchi (Padre), 599 

Marcia, 71 

te emperor, 469, 472, 473, 
535-6, 541 

Marcion, 62, 96n., I2I, 133, 134, 
136, 137—4I, 142, 143, 144, 
146, 252 

Marcionites, 134, 543 

Marcomannic war, 64, 65, 69, 70, 71 

Marcus, first Gentile bp. of Aelia, 
60 

Marcus, a Priscillianist, 409 

Marcus, a Valentinian, 137, 595 

Mardia, battle of, 295 

Mardonius, tutor of Julian, 352 

Mareotic commission, 388 

Mareotis, Lake, 270 

Mariamne, wife of Herod, 16n., 17, 
18, 19, 20, 36 

Mariamne, daughter of Simon, 22 

Marinus, bp. of Arles, 293 

Maris of Hardaschir, 546 

Mark (St.), 31, 36, 42, 246n., 271, 
569; Gospel of, 96n., 117, 134, 
246n. 

Mark of Arethusa, 347n., 352, 366 

marriage, 149, 225, 237-8, 256, 
286, 543, 5573 of clergy, 573 

Marsa, 444 


INDEX. 


Marseilles, 90, 526 
Meu ae Brigandage d Ephese, 


472 

Martin (St. 2: bp. of Tours, 408— 
413, 562 

Martinmas, 413 

martyrdom, 9, 194, 240, 307-8 

martyrology, 79, 240 

martyrs honoured, 140, 240, 267, 
290-1 

Marucchi, 599 

Maruthas of Mesopotamia, 550 

Mary, the Blessed Virgin, 29, 112, 
171, 458, 459, 464, 528, 539, 


557, 608, 615 
Mary, mother of M ark, 31 


Mary of Cassobola, or, 112n., 113 

Mason (Canon), 56n., 80n., 84n., 
85n,, 86n., 87n., 88n., 9on., 
gin., 15in.,. 2030, eden... 
290n., 29In. 

Maternus of Cologne, 292 

Mattathias, 7, 23n. 

Matthew (St.), 42, 117, 118, 134; 
Gospel of, 39, 96n., 117, 118, 


142 
Matthias (St.), election of, 29-30, 
223 ; Gospel of, 14q4n. 
Mattidia, legendary mother of 
Clement of Rome, 106-7 
Maturus, martyr, 68 


Maxentius, 84n., 88, 89, 90, 92, . 


280, 282, 283, 284, 290 

Maximian, emperor, 84, 88, 89, 90, 
283, 290 

Maximian, Donatist deacon, 498 

Maximianists, 498 

Maximilla, Montanist prophetess, 
225 

Maximin the Thracian, 75, 258 

Maximin Daza, 86n., 88, 89, 90, 
gI-2, 283, 295 

Maximus, philosopher, 355, 360, 
3 - 

Maximus (Magnus), usurper, 409, 
41I—13, 418, 423, 426-7, 432 

Maximus, senator, 534, 540 

Maximus, soldier, 371 

Mayor eh ack Joseph B.), 32n., 


g5n. 
McGiffert (De), 64n., 86n., 332n. 
Melania, 485n. 
Melchiades or Miltiades, pope, 293 
Melchisedek, an angel, 169 
Melchizedek, priest-king, 223n, 


F 
. 
: 
. 
: 
¥ 
: 


INDEX. 


Meletian schism, 318-19, 320 
Meletius, bp. of Antioch, 378, 


380n., 387, 392, 395-6, 403, 440 
Melitene, quarters of twelfth legion, 


69, 70 

Melito of Sardis, 54, 59n., 60, 
65n., 66 

Memnon of Ephesus, 463 

Memphis, 127, 409 

Memra, 94, 155 

Menaea, 110 

Menelaus, 6 

Mensurius, bp. of Carthage, 290-1 

Mercury in catacombs, 602 

Meropius, 556 

igs ee 318, 542, 547, 548, 


5 

Mesrobes, 555 

Messalina, 248 

Messiah, 14, 27, 197 

Messianic hopes, 2, 7—10, 15, 19, 
21 

Messianic kingdom, 15, 21, 30, 178 

Metatron, 125 

Methodius of Tyre, 168 

Metrodorus, Marcionite martyr, 62 

Milan, 283, 355-6, 357, 409, 410, 
413, 416, 418, 422—7, 451, 
518, 561 ; see EDICTS, SYNODS 

Miletus, St. Paul at, 131 

Mill (J. S.), 139n. 

Millenarianism, 117, 118, 177-8 

Milman (Dean), 47n., 53n., 58n., 
74n., 79n., 85n., 114, 151n., 
152n., 156n., 183n., 210n., 
242n., 254n., 290n., 316n., 
317n., 389n., 500n., 506n., 
527N., 530n-, 533n-, §39n., 


555n- 
Miltheies or Melchiades, pope, 293 
Milton on Ignatian Epistles, 113 
Milvian Bridge, battle of, 92, 282 
Minerva, 74 
Minim, 142n. 
Minucius Felix, Apologist, 65n., 
66, 92n., 208, 24In. 
miracles, belief in, 241 and nn., 
242, 413, 425, 500n. 
Miroclus, bp. of Milan, 293n. 
Mishna, 10 
Misopogon, 352, 3530.5 
369n., 371 
Missa Catechumenorum, 236 
Mithras, worship of, 184-5, 372) 407 
Moberly, 216n., 310n. 


3572: 5 


637 


Modestus, praefect, 380, 384 

Moesia, 559 

Mohl (M. Jules), 107 

Mommsen, 547n. 

Monad, 143, 164 

Monarchianism, 163—72, 254, 26% 

monasticism, 152, 203, 270, 382, 
393 495, 408, 427, 445, 446-7, 
468, 481, 485, 508, 564, 565, 
581, 585—8 

monks, 585—8; at councils, 574 

Monnica, mother of St. Augustine, 
491, 495, 496, 613 

Monophysites, 277, 473, 474s 477, 


547, 566 

Monotheism, 2, 182, 300 

Montanists, 101, 169, 170, 174, 
177; 178, 221, 224-5, 233, 238, 
254, 263, 264, 288 

Montanus, 224 

Montius, quaestor, 354 

Morinus, 227n. 

Morrison, Austory of the Jews, 21n.}3 
St. Bastl and his Rule, 581n. 

mosaics at Ravenna, 602, 605, 607. 
609; at Rome, 529; at Jeru- 
salem, 576 

Mosaism, II, 34 


Moses, 5, 8n., 25, 33, 143, 270, 
608 


Moses da Leon, 124 

Moses of Chorene, 556n. 

Mosheim, 133 

mourners, penitential order, 579 

Mozley (Prof.), 151n. 

Muratorian fragment, 96n., 116n., 
144n., 145, 244n. 

Mursa, battle of, 341 

Mysia, 38 

Mysteries: Hellenic, 59, 187-8, 190, 
355, 3573 Christian, 230 

myths, ancient, 136 


Naaseni, see OPHITES 

Naples, catacombs at, 597 

Narbonne, 526 

Narses, Persian king, 550n. 

narthex, 580 

natalitta of martyrs, 601, 611, 
613, 614 

Nathan (Rabbi), 10 

Natures in Christ, 451—78, 546 

Nazaraeans, 142n. 


Neale, 463n. 


638 


Neander, 30n., 38n., 42n., 45n., 
$2n,,, 60, 6$0,5°°92,-975u-, 
76n., 77N-, 79n-, 134, 141, 
162n., 163n., 167n., 168n., 
173n. 174, %175n., 176n., 
17Sn., 207h);. 24in.,2670., 
269n., 282, 342n., 39In., 601n. 

Nectarius, bp. of Constantinople, 
396, 400-1, 441 

Nehemiah, 3 

Neo-Platonism, 86, 91, 162, 1869, 
195—203, 300, 362, 419, 436 

Nephesh, 125 

Nepos, bp. of Arsinoe, 177-8 

Nepos (Julius), 541 

Nereus, Roman martyr, 247n., 598, 
611 

Nero, 46n., 48, 50-1, 64, 183n., 
197, 242, 246, 249 

Nerva, 53, 195, 197 

Nestabus, martyr, 372 

Nestorianism, 277, 458-9, 461—7, 
473, 474; 528, 537> 545-5, 547; 
551-2, 565, 566 

Nestorius, 391, 451, 
466-7, 468, 

46 


458, 461—4, 
469, 470, 528, 


Neumann, 72n. 

Nevitta, consul, 359, 360 

Newman (Cardinal), 304n., 330n., 
332n., 346n., 363n., 373M, 
389n., 465n. 

New Testament, 24, 39, 40, 58, 
93—-7, 107, 109, 127, 136, 
140, I51, 199, 202, 214, 216, 
232, 271, 373, 482, 547, 5583 
scenes in catacombs, 607-8; 
see CANON 

Nicaea, council of, see COUNCILS 

Nicanor, 7n. 

Nicé, Creed of, see CREEDS 

Nicene Creed, see CREEDS 

Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers; 
Library of, 64n., 66n., 8on., 
$6n., 9° 1630.4) "3640, 38 Gai, 
334n., 347n., 374n., 378n., 
381ns, 382m, 3630.) ~384n., 
388n., 394n., 551n. 

Nicephorus, patriarch of Constan- 
tinople, 101 

Nicetas of Remisiana, 424n. 

Nicetes, 61 

Nicholas I., pope, 337n. 

Nicolaitans, 133 

Nicolaus the deacon, 33 


INDEX. 


Nicomachus Flavianus, 419, 420 


Nicomedia, 83, 87, 355; proposed 


council at, 347n. 

Nina (St.), 555-6 

Ninian, 564 

Nirvana, 126 

Nisibis, 467, 542, 544, 545, 5495 
550n. 

Nitrian desert, 114, 446 

Noah, 143; in catacombs, 606, 
608 

Noetus, 141, 164, 170 

Noldeke, 468n. 

Northcote and Brownton, Subter- 
ranean Rome, 240n, 

Not-Being, 591 

Nods, 162, 163, 593 

Novatian, 168, 172, 174, 226, 261, 
262, 265n., 268, 318 


Novatianism, 172, 224,226, 259—62, 


268, 399n., 400-1 
Novatus, 261, 262, 266—8, 291 
Nubians, 564 
Numenius, 196, 197n. 
Numerian, emperor, 48, 74, 82 
Numidia, 263 


Oak (the), synod at, 448, 449, 522 

Oceanus in catacombs, 602 

Octavian, Augustus, 18, 20, 22, 48, 
70, 83, 326, 419 


Odenatus, husband of Zenobia, 167 


Odin, 559 

Odovacar, Gothic chieftain, 541 

Odyssey, 272, 436 

oecumenical, 304, 319 

Oehler, 155n. 

offerings at Eucharist, 235 

ogdoad, 593 

oil at baptism; 576 

Old Testament, 2, 8, 127, 136, 
138-9, 140, 151, 154, 155, 159, 
160n., 199, 202, 208, 236, 373, 
482, 493, 508, 515, 547, 558, 
560n., 590; scenes in cata- 
combs, 608 

Olybrius, consul, 415 

Olybrius, emperor, 541 

Olympias, 475, 573 

Olympius, philosopher, 407 

omens, 85 

On, 127 

Onesimus, bp. of Ephesus, 111 

Onias, 6 


ae oe a 


INDEX, 


Onkelos, 155 

Ophites, 134, 135-6, 589-90 

Optatus of Melevis, 497, Soin. 

optim, 367 

oraniz, in catacombs, 608 

Orders, indelibility of, 259 ; Roman 
Catholic, 227 

Ordination, 226—8, 259-60, 482, 

_ 521-2, 609n. 

Origen, 46, 47n., 72, 75> 79, 77, 
97, 99, 103, 142n., 144, 148, 
154, 162-3, 164, 165, 168, 
170n., I7I—5, 178, 179, 184, 
185n., 189, 198, 200, 203, 224, 
226, 239n., 24In., 246n., 253, 
271, 273—7, 302, 308, 313n., 
336, 445—8, 452n., 458n., 

_ 475, 482, 486, 487—9, 490 

Origenists, 168, 438, 445—8, 456, 

_ 474, 487—9, 522 

origin of evil, 127-8 

Original Sin, doctrine of, 175, 
504—I1 

Ormuzd, 123, 184, 549 

Orosius, 406n., 504, 512n., 524 

Orpheus, 5, 74; in catacombs, 602 

Osiris, 136, 183n. 

Ostrogoths, 559 

Ottley, 478 

ees ere» 313n., 347, 348, 377, 


3 
Owen (Rev. John), 115n. 
Ozroene, 542 


Pachomius, 587 

Paganism, 323, 327, 
404—8, 413—16, 
430, 513, 524, 583 

~aganus, 406 and n. 

Palestine, 2—34, 35-6, 59, 274, 
276, 382, 485, 503, 5255 547 

Palestinian-Syriac Version, 547 

Palladium, 74 

Palladius, biographer, 334n., 441n., 
442n., 447n. 

Palladius, deacon, 563, 564, 566 

palm branch, emblem, 606 

Pamphilus, 168, 277 

Panaetius of Rhodes, 191n. 

fanarion of Epiphanius, 446 

Pantaenus, 161, 271 

Pantheism, 154, 157, 170 

papal decrees, 521 

Faphnutius, bishop, 320, 573 


35 I—74, 
417—20, 


639 


Papias, bp. of Hierapolis, 96n., 
116—18, 177, 178, 246n. 

parabolanz, 581 

Paraclete: Manichaean, 151; Mon- 
tanist doctrine of, 174, 225 

parishes, 119 

Parissot (Dom), 551 

Parker (Abp.) 308 

Parmenian, 497, 499 

Parry (Dr. St. John), 32n., gsn. 

Parseeism, 150 

Parthians, 17, 548, 552 

Paschal controversy, see EASTER 

Paschasinus, bp. of Lilybaeum, 473 

Pass (H. L.), 551n. 

Pastoral Epistles, 96n., 131, 132n., 
141, 213, 214, 217, 318, 221n., 
573 

pastors, 214 

Patmos, 119 

patriarchates, 568—7o 

Patricius, father of St. Augustine, 


491 

Patrick (St.), 561—4, 566 

Patripassian doctrine, 141,164, 165, 
170, 340n. 

Patroclus, bp, of Arles, 526 

Paul (St.), 14, 30n., 31—42, 43, 
49, 50, 51, 93—5, 99, 103—I0, 
116, 128—131, 139—43, 178, 
192, 202, 203, 204, 212—I5, 
230, 232, 233-4, 244—6, 
250, 285, 586, 592; Epistles of, 
32, 38, 39) 51,94, 95, 96n., 103, 
E15, Li 555,129, 00. 13355 140, 
I5I, 245, 593, 613, 615; his 

. body, 598, 611; festival of, 580 

Paul I., pope, 599 

Paul, bp. of Emesa, 465 

Paul of Samosata, 81, 164, 166-7, 
298n., 312, 313n., 320, 337, 
342n., 346n. 

Paul, bp. of Constantinople, 334, 
399, 400 5 

Paul, surnamed ‘the Chain’, 360 

Paul the Hermit, 482 

Paula, ascetic, 410, 482-3, 485, 486 

Paulicians, 151 

Paulina, 483 

Paulinian, Jerome’s brother, 482, 488 

Paulinus, bp. of Antioch, 378, 387, 
395-6, 482 

Paulinus, biographer of St. Ambrose, 
416n., 421, 504 

Paulinus (St.) of Nola, 420, 503, 583 


640 


peacock, emblem, 606 
Pearson (Bp.) on Ignatius, 114, 115 
Pelagius, 502—11, 525-6 
Pelagianism, 458, 461, 462, 474, 
oe, 499, §02—IT, 525-6, 539 
3 


penance, 237, 256, 268n., 423, 


579-80 

Pentateuch, IIn. 

Pentecost, 30; Christian festival, 
580 

Peratae, 136 

Peregrinus Proteus, 188, 190-1 

wept apx@v, Origen’s, 483 

Peripatetics, 158 

Perpetua, martyr, 72-3, 225, 263. 
See ACTS 

Perry, Second Councel of Ephesus, 
472n. 

persecution: 44—46, 76, 220, 289, 
431, 446, 499, 500; at Jeru- 
salem, 33, 353 under Nero, 
50-1 ; under Domitian, 51—3 ; 
under Trajan, 54—8; under 
Hadrian, 59 ; under Antoninus 
Pius, 60—2; under Marcus 
Aurelius, 65—8 ; at Madaura 
and Scillium, 66; at Lyons 
and Vienne, 67-8, 76; under 
Septimius Severus, 72-3, 264, 
271, 2743 under Maximin the 
Thracian, 75, 258, 275; under 
Decius, 62, 76—9, 257, 261, 
268; under Valerian, 79-80, 
576; under Diocletian, 86—8, 
196, 277, 279, 280, 289, 305, 
381, 497; under Galerius, 89, 


280; under Maximin Daza, 
gi-2; of the Priscillianists, 
408—13 


Persephone, 187 

Persia, 42, 123, 133, 149-50, 184, 
394, 373) 467, 548—52, 554) 
555) 556, 505 

persona, 377, 454 

Pertinax, emperor, 72 

Pescennius Niger, 72 

Peshitta, 547 

pestilence, 65, 81 

Petavius, 603 

Peter (St.), 26, 27, 30, 31, 34, 36, 
37; 41-2, 50, 93, 95, 103, 105— 
LIO, 117, 12639434, 143, 202, 
244—6, 250, 260, 398, 538, 
586, 592; Ist Epistle of, 30, 


INDEX. 


Peter (St.) continued: — 
g6n., 118, 246; 2nd Epistle of, 
g6n., 108n., 132-3 ; Gospel of, 
144n.; his body, 598, 611; 
his chair, 422; festival of, 580; 
in catacombs, 605, 615 

Peter, bp. of Alexandria, 318, 392, 
397n., 398 

Petilian, Donatist, 498-9, 500 

Pharisaic Christians, 31, 36, 37, 129 

Pharisees, 10, II-12, 16, 20-1, 23, 

25, 31 

Pheroras, 20 

Philadelphia, 111 

Philadelphians, Ignatius to, 112 

Philagrius, praefect, 334 

Philemon, Epistle to, 239 

Philetus, 132 

Philip the Apostle, 116 and n., 117 

Philip the deacon, 33, 34, 116 and 
N., 213, 228n. 

Philip the Arabian, emperor, 75 

Philip, son of Herod the Great, 22 

Philip, tetrarch of Iturea, 21, 22, 


27 
Philip II. of Spain, 90, 281 
Philippi, 38, 103, 112; church of, 


ae oem : 
Philippians, St. Paul’s Epistle to, 
39, 44, 96n., 103, 106, 244; 
Polycarp’s Epistle to, t19; 
Pseudo-Ignatius to, 113 
Philippopolis, synod of, 339 
Philo, 13n., 23n., 94, 99, 125, 127, 
155-6, 1575 161, 196, 273) 399, 


334n. 
Philocatta of Origen, 382 
Philocrates, 5 
Philomelium, church of, 60, 119 
philosophers, 94, 153-9, 181, 183-9, 
60 


3 
Philosophumena, 148, 169, 171, 257 
philosophy: Greek, 14, 126, 127, 
135, 153, 159, 181-2, 189, 200, 
269; Indian, 126, 127 
Philostorgius, Arian historian, 
363n., 382n., 560n, 
Philostratus, 197 
Philoxenian version, 547 
Philoxenus, presbyter of Rome, 


339n. 
Phoebadius of Agen, 348 
Phoebe, deaconess, 215 
Phoebus, 184 
phoenix, in catacombs, 606 


INDEX. 


Photinus of Sirmium, 340, 341-2. 
344, 346 

Phrygia, 38, 40, 116, 224 

gvots, 454 

Picts, conversion of, 564 

pictures in catacombs, 
614-15 

Pierius, 168 

Pilate, 23-4; in catacombs, 605 ; 
his palace, 582 

pilgrimage, 582-3 

Pillet (Abbé), 68n., 73n., 217n., 
225n., 238n. 

Pinna, bishop, 80 and n. 

Pionius, martyr, of Smyrna, 62, 79 

Pius, bp. of Rome, 252, 519, 600 

Plato, 5, 159, 204, 283, 421, 513, 


607—1I0, 


591, 595 

Platonism, 163, 194, 196, 495, 
514 

Platonists, 159, 194, 196 

Plato-Pythagoreans, 196-7 

Plautius (Aulus), 248 

Pleroma, 593, 594 

Pliny the Elder, describes Essenes, 
13n., 125 

Pliny the Younger, letter to Trajan, 
45, 53n., 54—7, 233 

Plotinus, 200, 201, 300, 362, 494 

Plumptre (Dr.), 79n., gin. 

Plutarch, 184n., 194n., 196, 269 

Pluto, 187 

Pollentia, battle of, 439 

Polybius, bp. of Tralles, 111 

Polycarp, bp. of Smyrna, 40, 46n., 
58, 60—2, 66, 96n., III, 112, 
116, 118, 119—21, 146, 177, 
221, 251, 611; ‘Martyrdom’ of 
610-11 

Polycrates of Ephesus, 66, 116 

Polyeuctes of Armenia, 79 

polytheism, 157, 308, 373 

Pompeianus, praefect, 523 

Pompeii, 239, 580 

Pompey, 17, 184 

Pomponia Graecina, 248-9 

Pontianus, Roman bishop, 258, 607 

Ponticus, martyr, 68 

Pontifex Maximus, 282, 362, 363, 
392, 404, 416, 417, 616 

Pontitianus, 495 

Pontius Pilate, 23 

Pontus, 30n. 

poor, care of, 34, 218, 235 

popes, personal obscurity, 529 


641 


Porphyry, 86, 200—3, 300, 362, 373 

Potammon, 308 

Pothinus, bp. of Lyons, 68 

Potitus, British presbyter, 562 

praescriptio, 147n. 

Praetextatus (St.), Catacomb of, 
598, 611 

Praetextatus, Roman noble, 415, 
420 

praetorian guard, 72, 244 

Praxeas, IOI, 164, 169-70, 174, 
221, 254 

prayer, 237; for the dead, 612; for 
the emperor, 219 

preaching, 578 

predestination, 152, 504—I1I 

presbyters, 117, 131, 212-13; 214, 
218—27, 236, 237, 257, 266, 
271, 571, 572 

presbyteresses, 573 

Prescott, 289n., 431n. 

Primal Man, see ADAM KADMON 

Primian, 498 

Prisca, Montanist prophetess, 225 

Prisca, wife of Diocletian, 44, 84n., 
85, 87, 9In., 283 

Priscilla, at Corinth, 38 

Priscilla (St.), Catacomb of, 244n., 
597, 609, 610 

Priscillian, 408—13 

Priscillianists, 408—13, 531 

Priscus (Helvidius), 52n. 

Proaeresius, sophist, 368, 381 

Probinus, consul, 415 

Probus, emperor, 82 

Probus, nobleman, 415-16, 432 

Procopius, usurper, 380 

Procula, Priscillianist, 410 

Proculus, Christian slave, 72 

Proculus, bp. of Narbonne, 526 

prophets: Hebrew, 5, 159, 173; 
Christian, 102, 213, 214, 215, 
219 ;. Montanist, 225 

proselytes, 13, 25, 29, 34, 72 

Frosper, poet, 509 

Protasius, martyr, 425-6 

Proteus, 197 

Proverbs, Book of, 155 

Prudentius, poet, 258n., 406n., 421 

Psalter, Jerome’s revision, 452 

Pseudo-Ignatian Epistles, 112-13 

Psyche, in catacombs, 602 

Ptochotropheion, 581; of St. Basil, 

$3 and n. 
Ptolemy I. (Soter), 182, 270n. 


ss 


642 


Ptolemy II. (Philadelphus), 5 

Ptolemy ICI. (Euergetes), 182 

Ptolemy IV. (Philometor), 5n., 6 

Ptolemy VII. (Physcon), 6 

Ptolemy, a Valentinian, 137, 146, 
595 

Pudens, 597 

Pulcheria, 432, 468-9, 472, 473; 
535-6 

purgatory, 178 

Puritanism, 12, 112, 225, 253—62, 
603, 604, 613 

purity of Christian life, 237-8 

Pythagoras, 5, 186, 202 

Pythagoreans, 158, 196-7 


Quadi, invasion of, 65, 69 
Quadratus, apologist, 59, 204 
Quakers, 225 

Quartodecimans, see EASTER 
Quintus, 60 

Quirinus, propraetor of Syria, 23 


Rabbis, 3, 19, 22, 24 
Rabbulas, bp. of Edessa, 466-7, 
545-6 

Rainy, 102n. 

Ramsay (Prof.), 38n., 46n., 50n., 
52n., 53n., 56n., 57n., 58n., 
65n., 72n., 383n. 

Ravenna; 523; mosaics at, 580, 
583, 584 
Rawlinson, I51n., 550n., 552n. 

555n. 

readers, 218, 236, 353n., 355, 570, 


572 
re-baptism, 268-9 
Recognitions, Clementine, 95, 106, 


142-3 
Redemption, 176; Gnostic views 
Of, 440, 151, 672 ¢hiwelsus’ 


views of, 199 

‘Refutation of all the Heresies’, 
see PHILOSOPHUMENA 

Regillus (Lake), anniversary of 
battle of, 320 

relics, veneration of, 203, 292, 422, 
424-5, 581 

religio tllictta, 206 

religio lsctta, 81, 9In. 

Renan (Mons.), 30n., 34, 46n., 
67n., 68n., 71, 185n., 189n., 
205, 217n., 250n., 270 


INDEX, 


Rendall, 2o1n., 3520.) 3530. +9 355Mey 
356n. » 360n., 361n., 362n., 
363n., 364n., 366n., 367n., 
368n., 369n., 372n., 373n. 

Renouf, 184n., 346n. 

rescripts: Hadrian, 59; M. Aurelius, 
60; Gallienus, 80; Constantine, 


290 

ResponstoArchiepiscoporumAngliae, 
228n. 

Restitutus of London, 293 

Resurrection, doctrine of, 9, 12, 28, 
132, 178-9, 275, 438. See also 
FUTURE LIFE 

Reticius, bp. of Autun, 292 

Revocatus, martyr, 72 

Rhipsime, virgin, 553 

Ricimer, 540-1 

Ritsch] (O.), 268n. 

Robertson (Bp.), 2n., 76n., 282n., 
315n., 324n., 347N. 

Robinson ‘(Dean diay Gee Beis 
73n., 205, 217A. 

Rogatists, 498 

Rogatus, 498 

Rome, 38, 39, 51, 159, 4c 413- 15, 
421-2, $1I-12, 518 » 523-4, 

575) 596—616 

early bishops, 105 

church of, 38-9, 40-1, 43-4, 

50, 58, 64,93, 107—9, 138, 164, 

169, 172, 210n., 215, 216, 224, 

226, 234, 24362, 268, 319; 

335, 460-1, 465-6, 482—5, 

517—49, 568, 582, 614, 615 

St. Peter at, 41 

Roman procurators, 23 

Rome confessors, letters to Cyprian, 
7 

—— empire, 17, 39, 73-4, 83, 207, 
250, 285, 295, 404-5, 540 

religion, 74, I 

—— see, supremacy of, 421, 433, 
460, 517—22, 528, 529—40 

Romans, St. Paul’s Epistle to, 28n., 
38, 93, 95n., 108n., 215, 244, 
246; Ignatius’ Epistle to, 111, 
1t2 

Romulus Augustulus, 479, 541 

round churches, 574 

Routh, Re/zguzae Sacrae, 85n. 

Rufinus of Aquileia, 306, 324, 
369n., 377n., 445, 480-1, 
485n., 487—9, 555, 556-7 

Rufinus, minister, 439 


INDEX. 


Rufus (Annius), 23 

Rufus, martyr, 112 

Ruinart, 113, 373n. 

Russia, church of, 451 
Rusticus (Q. Junius), 65, 189 


Sabbath, Jewish, 102, 557 

Sabellius, doctrine of, 160, 162, 
164-5 and n., 166, 170, 172, 
298, 300, 311, 317, 332, 336, 
340n., 341 

Sacerdos, British presbyter, 293 

sacrifices, 584 

Sadducees, 10-II, 12, 16, 25, 31, 32 

Sakya-Muni, 126 . 

Sallustius, praefect, 360, 370, 520 

Salmon, 118n., 119n. 

Salome, sister of Herod, 20 

Salvianus, bishop, 409, 410 

Samael, daemon, 125 

Samaria, 34; Samaritans, I1n., 22 

Sanctus, deacon and martyr, 67, 68 

Sanday, 270n., 334n. 

Sanday and Headlam, 210n., 246n. 

Sanhedrin, 17, 33 

Sapor, see SHAHPOOR 

Saracens, 556 

Saragossa, synod of, see SYNODS 

Saras, presbyter, 315 

sarcophagi in catacombs, 598, 605 

Sardica, council at, 228, 338-9; 
canons of, 527, 538 

Sardinian mines, 71 

Sardis, 111 

Sasima, Gregory of Nazianzus 
bishop of, 385, 395 

Sassanidae, dynasty of, 548, 552 

Satan, 150, 176 

Saturday, observance of, 580 

Saturninus, proconsul of Syria, 20 

Saturninus, martyr, 72 

Saul, king, 139, 140 

Saul (Sabhall), in Ireland, 563 

Sceva, sons of, 131 

Schepps, 412n. 

Scillium (or Scilla) persecution at, 
66 and n. 

Scott (C. A.), 561n. 

scribes, 3 

sculpture in catacombs, 605—10 

Scutari, battle at, 296 

Scythia, 42, 304 

Scythians, 435 

Scythianus, 149-50 


643 

Sebastian (St.), Catacomb of, 
599, 611 

Secundulus, martyr, 72 

Secundus (Pedanius), 285 

Secundus, Arian bishop, 303, 307, 


315 
Secundus, bp. of Tigisis, 292 
Secundus, a Valentinian, 137, 595 
Secundus, father of Chrysostom 
440 
Seleucia, see COUNCILS 
Seleucidae, 5, 9 
Seleucus Nicator, 5n. 
Seleucus (Mt.), battle of, 341 
Selwyn (Dr.), 38n. 
Semi-Arians, 309, 332n., 344, 345, 
347, 349, 377-8, 379; 380, 386, 
re) 


39 

Semi-Pelagians, 508-9 

Senate, the Roman, 48, 70, 83, 88, 
417-18 

Seneca, 189, 192, 194, 195, 203, 
204, 285, 493 

Senones, 418 

Sephiroth, 124-5 

Septimius Severus, emperor, 72-3, 
197, 264, 271, 274, 543 

Septuagint, 5, 106, 148, 154, 155, 
aa oie 277, 482, 486, 490, 

1g, 55 

Sepulchre, Church of Holy, 575 

Serapeum demolished, 406—8 

Serapion, bp. of Antioch, 144n. 

Serapion, archdeacon, 443 

Serapion, monk, 446 

Serapis, 182—4 and n., 270, 406-7 

Serena, 419 

Serennius Granianus, 59 

Sergius Paulus, 36 

sermons, 579 

Serpent, Gnostic, 135-6, 590 

Seth, 594 

Sethians, 136 

Severian, bp. of Gabala, 444 

Severus, emperor, 88, 89, 90. See 
ALEXANDER and SEPTIMIUS 

Severus (Claudius), philosopher, 189 

Severus, delator, 71n. 

Shahpoor I., king of Persia, 150, 


549 
Shahpoor II., 549, 551, 554 
Sheol, 9n. 
Shepherd, see HERMAS . 
Sibylline Oracles, 5, 6n., 69, 515 
‘signa’ taken into Jerusalem, 23-4 


© SEN ARES vad ied c RARER Soe a a 


644 


signs of coming trials, 85 

Silence, 593 

Silvanus, 38 

Silvia, a pilgrim, 583 

Silvester, pope, 293, 304, 321, 519 

Simon, king of Judaea, 10 

Simon ben Jochai, 124 

Simon son of Kamith, 23 

Simon the Just, 3n., 6 

Simon Magus, 41, 95, 107, I129n., 
135, 143, 244n., 252, 468 

Simonians, Nestorians called, 468 

Simplicianus, 495 

Siniatic-Syriac MS., 547 

Singara, 542, 550n. 

Sinuessa, synod at, 262 

Siricius, bp. of Rome, 413, 520-1, 
564, 571, 573 

Sirmium, 344; see COUNCILS, 
CREEDS, SYNODS 

Sisinnius, a Novatian, 400 

Sixtus II., bp. of Rome, 262, 598 

Sixtus IIL, bp. of Rome, 528-9, 


530 

slavery, 71, 195, 238-9, 285 

Smectymnuus controversy, 113 

Smith (G. A.), 16n. 

Smith (Robertson), 2n. 

Smyrna, 60, 111, 112; church of, 
112, 119, 610 

Socrates, philosopher, 5n., 176 

Socrates, Church historian, 110, 
252n., 270n., 298 and n., 304n., 
306, 307, 318n., 324n., 332n., 
3330+, 3350-, 3370-, 339N-, 
342n., 345n., 346n., 348n., 
349n., 352, 360n., 363n., 366n., 
368n., 369n., 370n., 372n., 
3770., 380n., 39In., 392n., 
393N., 395n., 399 and n., 400, 
407, 426, 44In., 442n., 443n., 
446n., 447n., 448n., 449n., 
450n., 458n., 461, 464n., 
465n., 475, 584 

sodalitates, 5'7n. 

Solomon, 2! 

soothsayers, Etruscan, 523 

Sopater, 322, 323 

Sophia, Gnostic, 589, 590, 593, 
594 

Sophia, church of, 449 and n. 

Sosioch, 124 

Sosius besieges Jerusalem, 17 

Sotades, Egyptian poet, 300 

sources of Gnosticism, 122-3 


INDEX. 
Sozomen, Church historian, 306, 


322n., 324n., 334N., 335m», 
336n., 339n., 340n., 344n., 
345n., 346n., 348n., 363n., 
368n., 372, 373N., 374N., 377N., 
379N., 407N., 408n., 440, 441n., 
442n., 443n., 446n., 447N., 
448n., 449n., 450n., 456n., 
469n., 523, 552n. 

Spain, 84, 2440., 409-10, 479. 
520-1 

Spartianus (Aelius), 72n, 

Spiridion of Cyprus, 306 

Spirit (Living), Manichaean, 150 

Spirit, Montanist doctrine of, 174 

spiritual gifts, see CHARISMATA 


pix (Dr.), 403n., 457n., 478, 


78n 

Stanley (Dean), Eastern Church, 
253, 305n., 306n., 315n., 
316n., 318n., i ee «jf | $240, 
332n., 465n., 473n., 603 — 

Stanton (Dr.), 10n., 27n., 48n., 
g6n., 97n., IOT 

Stauros, or Horus, 593, 594, 595 

Stephanus, assassin of Domitian, 
108n. 

Stephen he )> 33» 34, 1123 Festival 
ol, 


Stephen, ioe: of Antioch, 339, 
340n 

Bhi ‘bp. of Rome, 262, 269, 
2 


9 
Stephens (Dean), 441n., 
444n., 447n., 448n., 


522n. 
439, 523 


442n., 
4751-5 


Stilicho, 419, 

Stoicism, 65, 158, 189, I9I—5, 
196, 200, 204 

Stromatets, Clement’s, 149 

sub-deacons, 218, 227 

substantia, 377, 454, 456 

Sucat, see PATRICK 

Suetonius, 38, 43, 44n., 48, 51, 
§2n., 247n. 

suicide approved by Stoics, 193-4 

Sulpicius Severus, 324n., 346n., 
41on., 413n. 

curdgera, 457 

Sunday, observance of, 287, 398n.; 
580 

sun-worship, 184; see ZOROASTER 

superstition, Christian, 240—2 

Sursum corda, 577 

Susanna, in catacombs, 608 


er Py ai Ss wi a ai ua 
ee NL ee Seen er oe es 


INDEX. 


Swete (Dr.), 5n., 133n., 174n., 
2770., ‘ag: 403n., 457n. 

Sychem, 15 

symbolism in catacombs, 606 

Symeon, bp. of Jerusalem, 58, 60. 

Symeon the Stylite, 468 and n. 

Symmachus, translator, 277 

Symmachus, Roman senator, 414— 
416, 418, 420 

Symmachus, praefect, 527 

synagogue, 3, 32, 56, 212, 219 

Syncellus, 8n. 

Synesius, bishop, 426, 434—9, 445, 


573 

SyNnops: at Alexandria, 303, 368, 
376, 378, 445 5 at Ancyra, 345, 
346n.; at Antioch, 167, 456 ; at 
Biterrae, 377; at Bostra, 165 ; 
at Burdegala (Bordeaux), 411 ; 
at Carthage, 267, 268n., 504, 
525, 526-7; at Cirta, 292n. ; at 
Constantinople, 349, 377n., 470; 
at Diospolis (Lydda), 505, 525; 
at Hippo, 498; at Lampsacus, 
379; at Milevis, 525; at 
Milan, 342, 343, 356; of the 
Oak, 448, 449, 522; at Philip- 
popolis, 339; at Rome, 294, 
335, 456, 463; at Saragossa, 
409-10; at Sirmium, 342, 344; 
at Telepte, 521; at Tyana, 
386; at Tyre, 308, 317, 332n., 
388. See COUNCILS 

Syracuse, catacombs at, 597 

Syriac MS. of Clement’s Epistle, 
107 

Syriac Letters of Ignatius, 114 

Syriac Version of N. T., 547 

Syrian Christianity, 40, 542—7, 


5 
Syrian theology, 543-4 
Syrianus, praefect, 343 
Syzygies, doctrine of, 143 


Tabennesi, monastery, 537 
Tacitus, emperor, 82 


Tacitus, historian, 43, 47, 50n., 
104, 182, 183n., 249, 285, 
6In. 


5 
Tall Brothers, 446 
Talmud, 24, 126 
Tara, 563 
Targums, 94, 155, 547. 
Tarsians, Pseudo-Ignatius to, 113 


645 


Tatia, nurse, 248 

Tatian, 66, 144, 543, 547, 555 
Tattam (Archdeacon), 114 
Taurobolium, Mithraic rite, 185 
Taurus, praefect, 348 

Taylor (Dr. C.), 102n., 103n, 

Te Deum, 424 

teachers and prophets, 213, a14, 


215 

Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, 
see DIDACHE 

Templars, Knights, 152 

Temple of Jerusalem, 6, 17, 18-19, 


31, 32, 33, 48, 97n., 99; 
attempt to rebuild, 362-3 

temples (heathen), 365-6, 370, 
405—8 


tenuiores, 217N. 

Terebinthus, 149 

Tertullian, 8n., 42, 45, 46, 48, 
51n., 53n-, 54, 57, 63n., 64, 
70, 72, 73n., 75-6, 92n., 105, 
118, 120n., 138, 141, 146, 
147 and n., 154, 164n., 168, 
170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175; 
176, 179, 185, 189, 203, 204, 
206-7, 208, 210n.,217n., 22In., 
225, 230, 231n., 233, 235, 237, 
238n., 241n., 258, 260, 263—5, 
288, 313n., 406n., 454, 456, 
471, 543n., 585, 600, 603, 
610n., 613, 615 

Teutons, 559, 560, 566 

Thaddaeus, sent to Abgarus, 41 

Thalia, Arius’s, 303 

Thecla, 49-50 and n. ; see ACTS 

Themistius, orator, 69, 359 

Theocracy, 9, 22, 23 

Theodora, 84n. 

Theodore Askidas, 546n. 

Theodore of Mopsuestia, 440, 447, 
454, 457-8, 466, 469, 474-5, 
506, 546 

Theodoret (bp. of Cyrus), historian, 
I10, 136n., 202n., 303n., 310n., 
330n., 346n., 363n., 367n., 
371n., 374n., 378n., 408n., 
428, 442n., 443n., 456n., 464, 
469, 470, 471-2, 473; 475, 546, 
547n., 552n., 556n., 558n. 

Theodosian Code, 367, 580 

Theodosidus, 392n. 

Theodosius I., emperor, 88n., 392— 
433 passim, 439, 451, 479, 
520 


646 


Theodosius II., 463, 464, 467—72, 
534-5» 550 

Theodoti, namesakes, 164, 169-70 

Theodotion, Version of, 276, 277 

Theodotus, Gnostic, 137, 595 

Theognostes, Gallican bishop, 412 

Theognostus, 168 

Theologus, title of Gregory of 
Nazianzus, 402 . 

theology, scientific, 153, 156-7 

Theonas, bp. of Alexandria, 85 

Theonas, friend of Arius, 303, 307, 
315 

Theophanies, 160n. 

Theophilus, bp. of Antioch, 65n., 
161, 173, 208 

Theophilus, bp. of Alexandria, 
406—8, 426, 438, 441, 444— 
449, 466, 488, 522 

Theophilus, Gothic bishop, 559 

Theophorus, surname of Ignatius, 
110 

Theophronius of Tyana, 337 

Theotecnus, Neo-Platonist, 86, 91, 
196 

Theotimus, Gothic bishop, 447n. 

Beordkos, 458, 459, 460, 464, 469 

Therapeutae, 270 

Thermae, Valerian at, 80 

Thessalonica: church of, 38; edict 
of, 398; riot and massacre at, 
428, 439 

Thessalonians, Epistles to, 51n., 


g6n. 

Thomas (St.), 41, 42, 187, 543; 
Gospel of, 136, 144n. 

Thomas Aquinas, 54n., 476 

Thomas of Harkel, 547 

Thraseas, martyr, 66 

‘Three Chapters’, 546 and n. 

Thucydides, 421 

Thundering Legion, 69-70 and n. 

‘ Thyesteian banquets’, 67, 613 

Tiberias, city, 22 

Tiberius, emperor, 22, 23, 35, 48, 
105, 106 

Tillemont, 75, 293n., 534n. 

Timothy (St.), 38, 116, 131, 213n. ; 
Epistles to, 96n., 108n., 131 

Timothy, bp. of Alexandria, 395 

Tiridates, 552-3 

Titus, emperor, 104, 247 

Titus (St.), 37, 213n.; Epistle to, 
38n., 131 

Titus, bp. of Bostra, 371 


INDEX, 


Tixeront, 547n. 

Tobit, in catacombs, 608 

Toledo, Council of, 259, 260 

Tome of Leo L, 471 and n., 473, 
474, 536—8; of Damasus, 456 

tongues, gift of, 214 

Torquemada, 289 

‘town coachman’, 484, 490 

tradttores, 291—5, 497 

Trajan, emperor, 43, 54—8, 59, 77, 
103, 119, 204, 542, 598; reply 
to Pliny, 45, 530-, 57 

Tralles, 111 ; 

Trallians, Ignatius writes to, III 

Transfiguration, 173 

Travels of Peter, 143 

Trent, Council of, 486 

Tréves, 411, 417, 597 

Trim, 563 

Trinity : word first used, 161, 173; 
doctrine of, 167, 171—4, 230 
298, 308 

Tropici, 390n. 

Tryphaena, queen, 49 

Trypho, Justin’s dialogue with, 159 

Tiibingen, School of, 38n., 93—7, 
106, 114, 118 

Turner (C. H.), 60n. 

Two Natures, doctrine of, 451—78 

Tychonius, Donatist, 499 

Typhos, 435n. 


Tyre; synod at, 308, 317, 332n., © 


388 ; church at, 575 


Ueberweg, 155n., 186n., 
200n., 202n. 

Ulfilas, 301, 559-60 

Ulysses, 436 

Unction, 32 

vbrédoracis, see HYPOSTASIS 

Ursacius, Arian bishop, 315, 345, 
347—9; 376, 539 

Ursacius, Count, 294, 295 

Ursicinus, anti-pope, 527 

Ussher (Abp.), 113, I15 

Utch-Kilise, 553 


19In., 


Vahan, 554-5 

Vaharan, see VARANES 

Valens, emperor, 376, 379, 380, 
384, 391-2, 393, 394, 494, 417, 
431, 440 

Valens, bp. of Mursa, 315, 342, 
345» 347—9, 350, 379 559 


? : aa 
eV ee 


INDEX. 


Valentinian I., emperor, 286, 367, 
376, 379; 392, 404, 409, 415, 
422, 431 

Valentinian II., 392, 401, 409, 
418-19, 422, 426, 430 

Valentinian III., 471, 516, 533-4, 
540 

Valentinians, 129n., 137, 144, 146, 
252, 312, 371 

Valentinus, 134, 137, 138, 
146, 312, 313n., 592—5 

Valeria, 84n., 85, 87, gin. 

Valerian, emperor, 79, 87, 549, 
579; second edict of, 80; per- 
secution under, 80, 261, 598, 
601, 611 

Valerian, Count of Africa, 505 

Valerius, bp. of Hippo, 496, 571 

Valesius, 146n., 347n., 366n. 

Valla (Laurentius), 322 

Vandals, 501, 515—17, 560-1 

Van Manen (Dr.), 93n, 

Varanes I., 150, 548 

Varanes V., 550, 554 

Varro, 513 

Vartan (St.), 554 

Varus, governor of Syria, 22 

Vatican collection, 616 

Vedelius, 113 

Vespasian, 51, 52n., 104, 158, 197, 
247, 248 

Vestals, 418, 419 

Veturius, Roman general, 85 

Vickers, History of Herod, 21n. 

Victor, bp. of Rome, 121n., 169, 
170, 251, 254 

Victor, Roman presbyter, 304 

Victoricus, friend of St. Patrick, 562 

Victorinus, rhetorician, 368, 495 

Victory, Altar of, 416, 417—19 

Vienne, 358, 526; see LYons 

Vigilantius, 486-7 

Vigilius, pope, 599 

Vincent, bp. of Capua, 339, 342 

Vincentius, Roman presbyter, 304 

Vincentius of Lerins, 509, 560 

Vindicianus, proconsul, 492 

vine, emblematic, 602 

Virgil, 288, 421, 616 

Virgin Birth, 460, 476 

virginity, 109, 483 

Vision of Constantine, 280-1 and n., 
361 

Visions of Perpetua, 73n. 

Volkmar, 97n., 114 


14I, 


647 


Vopiscus, 183 
Voss (Isaac), 113 
Vulgate, 486 


Waterland, 232 
Wednesday observed as a fast, 102, 


Weismann, 510n. 

Weiss, 114. 

Weizsacker, 97n. 

Wellhausen, 2n. 

Wesseley (Prof.), 78n. 

Westcott (Bp.), 3n., 8n., 9n., r1n., 
270., 34n., 40n., 96n., 108n., 
Ir5n., 116n., 118n., 134, 157, 
159n., 166 

Westminster Abbey, 604, 611 

widows, 214, 218, 235, 573 

Williams, 130n. 

Wilpert (Mgr.), 599 

Wisdom of God, 143, 154, 155, 
308, 571; see SOPHIA 

Woman, First, 589 

women, 572; ministry of, 573 

Woodham, 208n. 

Word, doctrine of, 161, 155-6, 176, 
310, 340n., 452, 477, 5373 see 


Locos, MEMRA 
Wordsworth (Bp.), 114, 212n., 
213n., 215n., 216n., 217n., 


220n., 227N., 394D., 570m, 
572n., 573n. 

worship, 219 

Wright (A.), 478 

Wright (W.), 5510. 


Xenophanes, 186 
Ximenes, cardinal, 289 
Xystus, bp. of Rome, see S1xTus 


Yoma, Indian god, 183 
Yetsirah, Book of, 124 
York, 89, 293 


Zacchaeus in catacombs, 608 
Zaeharias, priest, 25 
Zacharias, pope, 337n. 
Zadok, 10 

Zahn, 342n. 

Zarvana Akarana, 123 
Zealots, 23 


648 INDEX. 


Zechariah, prophet, 25 Zohaz, book of, 124 
Zend-avesta, 123-4, 184 Zonaras, 238n. 
Zeno, emperor, 538, 541 Zoroaster, religion of, 123, 184, 467, — 
Zeno, martyr at Gaza, 372 548-9, 554, 555» 550 
Zeno, philosopher, 191, 194 Zosimus, martyr, 112 
Zenobia, queen, 81, 167 Zosimus, bp. of Rome, 505, 525, 
Zephyrinus, bp. of Rome, 164, 170, 526-7, 530, 538 

254, 255, 257, 2605, 598, O11 Zosimus, historian, 321, 322n., 447, 
zodiac, signs of, 150 523 


Tai EN aca tes fr iene in, «yr 


“wozsceKiyy uyor yo anz+ re 
‘ahqmuby go Keusnol purvy Jo ad yey 
“eneeyd7 pue ajdoulz 
*UB}EUOD 02 YOORUY WIRY SPOOI UIDY ———— 
Ov 0 02 Ov 


YONTIW VISV 


annie ee 


rete ee # 
ri : 


the Se nt meee 5 


menrrtinningsaale esa 


, od 
a 
4 5 a 
4 p 
4 a7 9 - a | Age 7 > A Ses ~ ry ah | 
SFilf 3 F ; : : $ ne a 3 ae: eee 
. a a 5 4). < 3 
t : As i ‘~ = a ke. ’ 
i : dl = al, te é F F 
: ; = ; ae) ee FOS 
: wey" pf Miratiaat Ny x . 2 4 
: e ms : E 
% 2 : 7 
e vt 5 : : 
- + 4 " = 
; 5 
7 P : ra Py 
A * 4 a Eon wel ee 4 
} 
bi < - ae a ok orate (ae ll ee ee , 
P i e elles . 


OMXYRHYNCUS .«. 


LYCOPOLIS™ 


Poesy PT 


shewing.- 
DESERTS ano MONASTERIES 


——=- 
Scale of Statute Miles 
20 0 40 80 


30 E. of Gr. 


-~ 
a 
— 

y 

S 
" 
* 
1 


“¥ aAsVOATMNOD MALAA a 
i aut oe 


LUFT, 
27 ite B78 


eee 


MAP 


to illustrate the 
ARIAN CONTROVERSY. 


Mere 


Councils are dated 
The pecked line indicates the great road. 
between Rome, Constantinople and the East. 


Scale of Statute Miles. 
200 100 0 200 400 


Sept net = 


o 
- airy etm 


Se ee ee eee, ee 


ee ee 


ae 2 Ot nee pate at © Loreen qzetty cartes dine ts 


Oh: oer? at 
SST RN 


TRO wSsty 

— 

Pn et 
RE Mp i 


a Se 
Lin te 
A 
; ; 
f ae 
. fs a ay 
* 4 ae 
‘ ng Mer 
€ , v Pm hs 
: oe 
¥ a 


ill | | | [ | il | i | ill 


ToL UT Re aa 
mp ey ar eames = ae ae 
agen ween: 


aieesars 
$i 
PAE ace gegen Oe re eee Teter 
= oe Biors 


.S 
peas er 

ook anteater Ae 
Rea at Si 
Sai openeeh 


seseteven 


Ten 


